OXIESEC PANEL

Name	Size	Modified	Perms
📁 ..	-	03/17/2019 06:24:57 AM	rwxrwxr-x
📄 03036edfece701eaa1537fea4014dd44.spc	52.22 KB	02/11/2020 10:50:52 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 04d0c6cc2bf146b1318b78f84416b912.spc	123.26 KB	03/12/2020 06:21:28 AM	rw-r--r--
📄 0582678c8cfff117f770f9368b70c2b5.spc	19.97 KB	02/11/2020 10:50:53 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 06d19ca88661ebf5f2459dd4315a2bb1.spc	169 bytes	02/11/2020 10:50:53 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 09c20f5ef1098fa6a0dcbf757db22c44.spc	212.6 KB	03/07/2020 03:53:26 AM	rw-r--r--
📄 0bb533998a40e1ca3cefc59d6e542fc8.spc	34.69 KB	02/11/2020 10:50:53 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 0ed254d4d9db6e3afe193b00bc6471bb.spc	31.22 KB	03/11/2020 01:28:56 PM	rw-r--r--
📄 1469d584e9747d132077c9df3cda6c97.spc	121.54 KB	03/12/2020 06:21:28 AM	rw-r--r--
📄 1608544648e39ada42071bed51f3b175.spc	192.61 KB	02/11/2020 10:50:54 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 1857fc578c17e6145bcf223d333aa48d.spc	79.19 KB	02/11/2020 10:50:54 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 192555ba2ac5f902a3e3f1c0e4aae46c.spc	176 bytes	02/11/2020 10:50:54 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 196f73e8cf4330017ab92ef17541ebea.spc	34.06 KB	02/11/2020 10:50:54 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 19d7e90c3867383bc4790ba57a9f0a5c.spc	39.17 KB	02/11/2020 10:50:54 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 19f3a21c36072f501f634db8e658bc9f.spc	17.31 KB	02/11/2020 10:50:54 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 1a2ad7ec8e9ae3e242926fdbb1c728ec.spc	34.11 KB	02/11/2020 10:50:55 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 1afdf65a8c3ff9f8db7a8f10b580c286.spc	41.69 KB	02/11/2020 10:50:55 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 1bb80174ec75e092e3e7dbd063def8b9.spc	29.45 KB	03/06/2020 06:31:05 AM	rw-r--r--
📄 1de9a562a6be22df63820a9463bcd78e.spc	168 bytes	02/11/2020 10:50:55 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 1e85d1a99d268e01b229ade5baf241c4.spc	40.19 KB	02/11/2020 10:50:55 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 23796aacf2848a8f58cd3ef3f69e38fc.spc	419.69 KB	02/11/2020 10:50:56 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 2408c179b723e6418904b92398f6b137.spc	83.21 KB	02/11/2020 10:50:57 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 242d3dabf79d13154fcc384ff8b2d25e.spc	138.23 KB	03/12/2020 06:21:24 AM	rw-r--r--
📄 24739622a680323db111e64a3e3c3305.spc	13.08 KB	03/11/2020 01:28:57 PM	rw-r--r--
📄 26ad3f3473af193dfc893e18704c9003.spc	5.83 KB	02/11/2020 10:50:58 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 2799184659106c88b5072a3e3f763a4d.spc	12.3 KB	02/11/2020 10:50:58 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 2abcd685295b4a261ad2e866188e5e11.spc	123.52 KB	03/12/2020 06:21:29 AM	rw-r--r--
📄 2d3ca8b6dffd0b708a87b587b3ae50cc.spc	48.87 KB	08/11/2020 06:13:30 AM	rw-r--r--
📄 30d0eeac4a6b2d98cdef50ef2edffa28.spc	38.41 KB	07/21/2020 08:32:16 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 30d5af6cd4c10ea02520bcaba31f3d1c.spc	474.22 KB	02/20/2020 06:35:59 AM	rw-r--r--
📄 3291222baa2e5dd4e0c4863cead17f0a.spc	366.46 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:02 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 346a1bcfe350fe2a1953cd7fbdc86186.spc	33.68 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:03 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 3691c57bc9ef4dc350ce3298a8291556.spc	34.69 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:02 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 38d3dc98ecc1c3d1c27452a54603959b.spc	30.38 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:02 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 3f7816c2aa3e261331a0214ae283daba.spc	36.88 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:03 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 3fabe39fe5de4def5db0b070e9d0c12e.spc	89.1 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:03 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 402e99fadf0b4cfb19572847e3765644.spc	31.17 KB	02/20/2020 06:35:54 AM	rw-r--r--
📄 403c286cb5177de3aee8ae96d600e668.spc	22.17 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:03 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 473e9ea85fa887bf730a58a3138e8427.spc	51.38 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:03 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 47481ffe1d8aa644664a3e0c5e57b911.spc	33.55 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:04 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 4b9b019425e46aa5699b25b164731ea6.spc	191 bytes	02/11/2020 10:51:04 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 4e8baeaef3679f9460ffdecddbb1f6a7.spc	38.47 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:04 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 4eb2ea2e7b4ee9f516345a8e766106ea.spc	41.31 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:04 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 4eb3be40ca0ee332f013def0ede20b51.spc	57.32 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:04 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 4eea197c2a9df7be5770ed85a45166af.spc	32.13 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:04 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 50df6b48e1a1b469b4fa9e86fc0c5018.spc	33.52 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:05 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 51447ae67b6d856982df0ea0496cf24b.spc	27.75 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:05 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 52598486d45e22d0c8e6d2cb26125d0e.spc	185 bytes	02/11/2020 10:51:05 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 52db6769e7a09162da92fb931530d490.spc	251 bytes	02/11/2020 10:51:05 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 557bca13c9bf58c561d365f34528cf99.spc	660.96 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:10 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 569a7c623553d15856943f80ff0d9ef0.spc	38.82 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:05 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 588359e68ff59d4ef53aaf3edb6a44cf.spc	5.91 KB	03/29/2020 11:25:33 AM	rw-r--r--
📄 593ed9fb92861195f982096e36a276a5.spc	78.73 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:08 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 59b7e8b10798f98d6ede55dc16d36abd.spc	286.35 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:10 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 5b48fed85f692b870a2e1c54eb110eea.spc	92.95 KB	02/27/2020 05:27:34 PM	rw-r--r--
📄 5b894986f9f55d997ed60e84c8fb60c7.spc	32.87 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:10 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 5c46aa1f7a9fbddb1de61f99e41c4c73.spc	27.51 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:10 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 5c541078070a50b4ef826d433fcade97.spc	203 bytes	02/27/2020 05:27:37 PM	rw-r--r--
📄 5c744a4198beb7326dcf101f961486b4.spc	56.9 KB	08/20/2020 06:22:11 AM	rw-r--r--
📄 5ef8b2cef4776b3e3f9f79092ce932ca.spc	123.2 KB	03/12/2020 06:21:29 AM	rw-r--r--
📄 60bc545cda9dafe75484b88be1dd4ae9.spc	62.66 KB	03/12/2020 06:21:27 AM	rw-r--r--
📄 60cdba7804abf8b71744dac57a1fd036.spc	37.57 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:12 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 6270f865db79068a5dedb78ba877e7a0.spc	32.31 KB	04/10/2020 11:49:32 AM	rw-r--r--
📄 64e0619d4a6fcecb77cd4fa41dd6658c.spc	43.69 KB	02/20/2020 07:08:27 AM	rw-r--r--
📄 66267a4d6dba7887fc7d4a1aa2da9b75.spc	124.15 KB	03/12/2020 06:21:28 AM	rw-r--r--
📄 6b370910388637897c5bc54c01bf6458.spc	39.47 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:12 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 6cedd2c7609f97e8201f50ac95407eb3.spc	373.91 KB	02/14/2020 05:05:41 AM	rw-r--r--
📄 6f3a7e432f89d87825c8f322156d359e.spc	105 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:14 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 6fb29d2636fbee8586653a44de845c14.spc	36.78 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:15 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 73bb6c1505db5ddb104f30c60b108890.spc	41.35 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:15 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 75223b5917c4f5312a6c6a8aecd9f9e6.spc	50.85 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:15 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 77ff73ee1cbbb4a6cb4bb52bbfd0543c.spc	94.22 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:15 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 7947ab9dba76b764cad321483ebe03c4.spc	26.63 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:16 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 7c2f1bde8d6c3ddb510b8089c44af91e.spc	43.81 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:16 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 7d1ab5c52f2c3ab33c409e73bedecc5e.spc	3.86 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:16 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 7f39e24ab9c263578364ff0fcde11837.spc	168.82 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:17 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 7fb89d7009fbbd9a5c1c2dcac2e055af.spc	2.12 MB	02/11/2020 10:51:32 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 80d5eace46cca553f0c7e7a631ed6703.spc	122.15 KB	03/12/2020 06:21:29 AM	rw-r--r--
📄 8464ad04f90f3f666985ad6a300191a2.spc	183.31 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:21 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 87bb9147a3420bb80136500148ef65dd.spc	373.91 KB	02/14/2020 05:06:32 AM	rw-r--r--
📄 89342927fe6500da4a2cd74e4c24cd84.spc	63.45 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:24 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 8bbfe139e67e5f738b9ffcb18a7c5b86.spc	92.25 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:26 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 8ddc5ee335658bf8ec6b8844cf85c93f.spc	38.21 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:26 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 8e912fe5f85715a1da6db5b96e9f1c91.spc	39.3 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:27 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 8edc68ba045edb463abe484c4485b3c1.spc	299 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:29 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 906b5d59de170e528244744b925a8af5.spc	32.01 KB	03/12/2020 06:21:25 AM	rw-r--r--
📄 925665a1ef421d5783a6690aaf7df881.spc	8.67 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:30 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 92c4233c5ea49b0f47ba9af6486e17f6.spc	30.9 KB	02/14/2020 10:55:56 AM	rw-r--r--
📄 93e4fd43857be9fead41ffa09315517f.spc	34.1 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:32 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 94b8ccc457e138e62b74ac96766909fe.spc	43.13 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:32 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 96c4f97f5353d399aeef3f49fcc0bd5a.spc	57.89 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:32 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 99e1eb580536f979670980ef56caa779.spc	87.52 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:33 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 9b4ca5bfc6880bed7985069758de6a4f.spc	38.89 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:33 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 Base.php	3.35 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:42 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 DB.php	4.6 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:53 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 File.php	4.19 KB	02/11/2020 10:52:02 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 Memcache.php	4.81 KB	02/11/2020 10:52:02 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 Memcached.php	5.27 KB	02/11/2020 10:52:02 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 MySQL.php	12.67 KB	02/11/2020 10:52:02 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 Redis.php	3.77 KB	02/11/2020 10:52:02 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 a3f94d98665e5d26445aa2956b13985d.spc	138.35 KB	03/29/2020 01:13:19 PM	rw-r--r--
📄 a40a776457ebfa5dcaef5c99f859250c.spc	126.09 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:33 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 a4a2ea47955d1ebd2b59a41a045b89ba.spc	86.78 KB	07/20/2020 05:27:37 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 a68acd2dce64f10ba3d23b96452cbd57.spc	53.71 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:34 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 a989cfbb4ebcd4ea5aede2f8d18f6b80.spc	114.06 KB	03/29/2020 01:13:18 PM	rw-r--r--
📄 aaf764fb46ef69a016d4d915512cedd4.spc	677.76 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:41 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 abea4df88cf62a5d9a03eb72a825b2f5.spc	23.09 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:36 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 abfe9571c106187db93288b1ea97357a.spc	28.61 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:36 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 ac468e6e3b78f7a8673a1be751be1226.spc	64.53 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:38 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 adb710891b75ea3e9d2379f0460c1d19.spc	65.91 KB	04/11/2020 06:44:20 AM	rw-r--r--
📄 adb7ca764a42bad01a0ccae2df09c2fa.spc	34.34 KB	03/29/2020 01:13:20 PM	rw-r--r--
📄 b1fc76c9199e2130438d81b6297c73fa.spc	124.12 KB	03/12/2020 06:21:29 AM	rw-r--r--
📄 b44b9e448df189cee8d7c7774273267b.spc	61.57 KB	08/22/2020 05:21:09 AM	rw-r--r--
📄 b5b9fb6ba1e724416126f7788d4bd8b7.spc	19.39 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:42 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 b95f1bb33446efbc7fa195b29ff261c6.spc	27.65 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:42 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 babee465717bca2404982e2751c61c53.spc	176 bytes	02/11/2020 10:51:42 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 bd3c5c1472767419fe12061049343483.spc	122.93 KB	03/12/2020 06:21:29 AM	rw-r--r--
📄 beb279d0ed1b28135d1331bbeb778b85.spc	39.34 KB	03/12/2020 06:21:27 AM	rw-r--r--
📄 c033b35e93579cf666101f023d034851.spc	108.48 KB	02/20/2020 06:35:51 AM	rw-r--r--
📄 c168527cd70d44755d5e3dc302cff303.spc	71.23 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:44 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 c31156c2178130a5e98ebbb8b2f61319.spc	32.33 KB	03/12/2020 06:21:25 AM	rw-r--r--
📄 c36e33d44db45f66ded3082899946005.spc	38.34 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:45 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 c3ae4c4faa1570ab007529b2461aed7c.spc	70.81 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:46 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 c49105af5fef08449f157af0549bf58b.spc	22.82 KB	03/12/2020 06:21:26 AM	rw-r--r--
📄 c62b9f08975a3ce69acf5001c1be6fc0.spc	828.2 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:51 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 c70815c1694d1b436d240d9290d75605.spc	139.88 KB	02/27/2020 05:27:37 PM	rw-r--r--
📄 c96754afef1f81a69a0494827bfa975c.spc	61.67 KB	02/11/2020 10:52:51 AM	rw-r--r--
📄 c97a7600c7331a10d8231324118b3a67.spc	19.75 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:48 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 cc6545fb14fe412555c86b6880afe2fb.spc	192 bytes	07/19/2020 12:01:09 PM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 cdb828b9de2723669f8b1a1352709ee2.spc	387.08 KB	02/27/2020 05:27:35 PM	rw-r--r--
📄 cfba70f3409c5425ded2d8430338d49a.spc	52.97 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:52 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 d537e9e237a12ec958fea41eced57151.spc	186 bytes	02/11/2020 10:51:52 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 d7881a7f1d63da45f197c9a2e16999e4.spc	16.18 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:52 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 d8c5aac1146a5e6b3c91488029d275be.spc	27.99 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:52 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 d8eefb559112e58cb4dab21367a186e2.spc	228.32 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:53 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 d9db250644ba2877f115f509ace5a7b5.spc	28.08 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:53 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 dc319385e4015b85de4c0dee8d535f8f.spc	37.1 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:53 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 dc7b0425002a35c26a812e42646cc5af.spc	111 KB	03/12/2020 06:21:28 AM	rw-r--r--
📄 debf9c17532a02a6e6db578a7f3a4646.spc	142.69 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:54 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 defbb59ea45d623ea1c51ac8743c90ea.spc	165 bytes	02/11/2020 10:51:54 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 df45183a85d0f0324d9f35c8c667f311.spc	124.89 KB	03/12/2020 06:21:28 AM	rw-r--r--
📄 e095b95df0ddae888ac7f451f20129bc.spc	38.71 KB	07/21/2020 08:32:17 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 e2003b6fa97074e2942822467b17062e.spc	26.48 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:55 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 e2a37cd95187c01162d6f71089afe300.spc	50.54 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:55 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 e57f0a350e6688a01a91dda64cfa2101.spc	122.43 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:55 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 e5dae6ccace4ca4cc8216461dda29c74.spc	100.76 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:56 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 e76dbae7c8f284493808fa5931a959ea.spc	37.61 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:56 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 ea703f3e5c39f76615e5a8b975f794a2.spc	19.19 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:56 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 ea82db2f68568b4765fcf688d6c93116.spc	64.03 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:56 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 ead3210aad70aa054d53594c794ef5cb.spc	36.52 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:56 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 f104494ec9505a88f21eecf9104e7bd5.spc	43.49 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:57 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 f14af3dc82bb30bf0c3018917fa3a45a.spc	23.14 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:57 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 f2e6e96f252853f6483f6c9c725f0ee2.spc	78.09 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:57 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 f34923678798ad8b6c06d24190cb88cd.spc	329.67 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:59 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 f5306b0dbdad73410aada80dbc3392d4.spc	2.43 KB	02/11/2020 10:51:59 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 f74498a86970a084e5ca639447042aa3.spc	85.09 KB	02/11/2020 10:52:00 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 f7d657440800849c7fcaeb682984c7e6.spc	30.41 KB	03/24/2020 05:47:43 AM	rw-r--r--
📄 f9cf779dc17343f7a142ab34fefeb6eb.spc	428.03 KB	07/14/2020 10:43:54 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 fbc57cfd03bf1e4ef525660536f2fc4c.spc	18.92 KB	02/11/2020 10:52:01 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 fbe8c695ab40ed6d8e54c74cfd8720fe.spc	38.5 KB	02/11/2020 10:52:01 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 fcf7bfc598a8e90673a28eed5eb8247c.spc	67.72 KB	03/29/2020 11:29:51 AM	rw-r--r--
📄 fd653df8381ec085d867b89d482aed73.spc	63.39 KB	03/12/2020 06:21:26 AM	rw-r--r--
📄 fe2860db6cccfc29356a9613564f0ce6.spc	37.76 KB	02/11/2020 10:52:01 AM	rwxrwxrwx
📄 fe3f8e2b11a2d63598dad10b4d4a31f6.spc	18.73 KB	02/11/2020 10:52:01 AM	rwxrwxrwx

Editing: 557bca13c9bf58c561d365f34528cf99.spc

a:4:{s:5:"child";a:1:{s:0:"";a:1:{s:3:"rss";a:1:{i:0;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:3:"

";s:7:"attribs";a:1:{s:0:"";a:1:{s:7:"version";s:3:"2.0";}}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:1:{s:0:"";a:1:{s:7:"channel";a:1:{i:0;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:288:"

";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:4:{s:0:"";a:9:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:29:"Technology – Education Next";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:29:"https://www.educationnext.org";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:75:"Education Next is a journal of opinion and research about education policy.";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:13:"lastBuildDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Sat, 01 Feb 2020 15:12:41 +0000";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"language";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:5:"en-US";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:9:"generator";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:30:"https://wordpress.org/?v=4.7.2";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:14:"managingEditor";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:62:"education_next@hks.harvard.edu (Technology – Education Next)";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:5:"image";a:1:{i:0;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:11:"
		
		
		
	";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:1:{s:0:"";a:3:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:29:"Technology – Education Next";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:3:"url";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:39:"http://educationnext.org/images/rss.jpg";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:65:"https://www.educationnext.org/category/inside-schools/technology/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}}s:4:"item";a:50:{i:0;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:84:"

";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:3:{s:0:"";a:6:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:105:"Straight Up Conversation: First American to Win WISE Prize for Education Innovation – by Frederick Hess";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:114:"https://www.educationnext.org/straight-conversation-first-american-win-wise-prize-education-innovation-rosenstock/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Tue, 17 Dec 2019 06:01:57 +0000";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"category";a:18:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:4:"Blog";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:1;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:9:"Editorial";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:2;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"Technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:3;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:14:"charter school";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:4;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:15:"charter schools";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:5;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:20:"education technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:6;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:14:"Frederick Hess";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:7;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:17:"Frederick M. Hess";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:8;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:14:"High Tech High";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:9;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"innovation";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:10;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:11:"innovations";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:11;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"Larry Rosenstock";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:12;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:9:"Rick Hess";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:13;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:21:"Rick Hess Straight Up";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:14;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:13:"School Choice";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:15;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:27:"technology in the classroom";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:16;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:24:"WISE Prize for Education";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:17;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:37:"World Innovation Summit for Education";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49692314";s:7:"attribs";a:1:{s:0:"";a:1:{s:11:"isPermaLink";s:5:"false";}}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:201:"Rick talks with Larry Rosenstock, education icon, the founder and CEO of High Tech High, and recent recipient of the WISE Prize for Education, about what he's learned after a half century in education.";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:32:"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/";a:1:{s:7:"creator";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:14:"Frederick Hess";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:40:"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:11166:"My old friend Larry Rosenstock, madman, education icon, and the founder and CEO of <a href="https://www.hightechhigh.org/" target="_blank">High Tech High</a>, was awarded the prestigious international <a href="https://www.wise-qatar.org/wise-works/wise-prize-for-education/" target="_blank">WISE Prize for Education</a> last month. This seemed a useful excuse to chat with Larry and pick his brain on all manner of things. For those who don&#8217;t know him, Larry started his career in the 1970s, teaching carpentry in Boston high schools before going on to work as staff attorney at the Harvard Center for Law and Education, to teach at Harvard and UC Berkeley, and to eventually found one of the nation&#8217;s most influential charter schools (and become a matinee idol as the hero of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Most-Likely-Succeed-Brian-Cesson/dp/B07F847XF3" target="_blank">Most Likely to Succeed</a>). I sat down with Larry to chat about what he&#8217;s learned from his half century in education. Here&#8217;s what he had to say.
Rick: First off, big congrats on your recent award! But, for those of us who don&#8217;t routinely attend award jet-set ceremonies in Qatar, just what is the WISE Prize for Education?
<img class="alignright size-full wp-image-49692313" style="float: right;padding-top: 5px;padding-bottom: 5px;padding-left: 5px" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext-dec19-blog-hess-rosenstock.png" alt="" width="400" />Larry: The prize was created by the Qatar Foundation about 10 years ago in an effort to elevate the work of educators around the world. The goal is to do for education what prestigious international prizes in science, economics, and literature have done for those fields. I was very honored and surprised to win and also very proud to be the first person from the U.S. to be awarded this prize.
Rick:This award is presented at the World Innovation Summit for Education. As one of the nation&#8217;s more accomplished education innovators, what do you make of the whole notion of &#8220;education innovation&#8221; anyway?
Larry: Much of what we call innovation—learning in interdisciplinary ways, learning through creating real things of value and new knowledge, working in teams, using technology in the ways it is used in the world of work, and learning outside of schools—has been practiced by progressive educators for many years, so perhaps it is not an accurate description. However, if you take a wider view, you will see that the majority of students in the world, and indeed in the U.S., are learning in ways that have not changed much for over a century. So in that sense, &#8220;innovation&#8221; is apt. John Dewey captured my view of education innovation over 100 years ago when he said, &#8220;There is no such thing as genuine knowledge and fruitful understanding except as the offspring of doing. People have to do something to the things they wish to find out about; they have to alter conditions. This is the lesson of the laboratory method, and this is the lesson which all education has to learn.&#8221;
Rick: OK, we won&#8217;t go back to Dewey, but let&#8217;s take it back a bit. How did you wind up doing this work in the first place?
Larry: I actually went to law school to work on prisoners&#8217; rights. I was a single father and was working on carpentry jobs to support us while I was in school. In one of my carpentry jobs at a community center, teenagers started coming around, and they were interested in what I was doing and wanted to learn how to use the tools. The director of the program suggested I think about teaching, so I did. Teaching vocational education in Boston and Cambridge in the &#8217;70s and &#8217;80s was a wake-up call about segregation. So I spent a lot of time and energy with colleagues there trying to bring together academic and technical education and also to bring together the kids who were so separated into those tracks.
Rick: About two decades ago, you launched High Tech High School. What led you to launch it, and where did the idea even come from?
Larry: After working at the Center for Law and Education and Cambridge Rindge and Latin School, I had the opportunity, with some amazing colleagues—including Rob Riordan, Debbie Meier, Ted Sizer, Dennis Litky, and Howard Fuller—to work on a project called the New Urban High School. We traveled around the country looking for the best examples of innovative urban high schools and tried to understand what made them successful. That, by the way, was how we came up with the design principles that are at the bedrock of HTH. One of those schools was in San Diego, and that ultimately led to me moving out here. In San Diego, I met a group of high-tech industry leaders who wanted to do something to improve science and engineering education—I don&#8217;t think the term &#8220;STEM&#8221; had even been invented then—for low-income students in San Diego. Our collaboration led to the founding of HTH. It was meant to be just one school, but over the years has grown to be 16 schools and a graduate school of education and teacher-credentialing program.
Rick: High Tech High is recognized as a model of project-based learning. But this is one of those terms that gets thrown about pretty casually. I&#8217;m curious about how you think about project-based education?
Larry: Project-based learning is essential. That term can mean different things to different people. At High Tech High, we call it &#8220;authentic work&#8221;—the idea that learning takes place through creating real things of value, whether it be a product, a performance, or a new method of doing something. Authentic work is one of four bedrock principles that HTH is founded on. Alongside authentic work is equity, the idea that all students, from all backgrounds and perceived abilities, are learning together; personalization, the assurance that students are respected, listened to, and known well; and collaborative design, which refers to teachers&#8217; autonomy to work together and with students to create their own curriculum.
Rick: You&#8217;ve been involved in charter schooling almost since its inception. What do you make of the state of charter schooling today?
Larry: Being a charter school made it possible for High Tech High to have the freedom to create the kind of school we envisioned. But I&#8217;ve always been someone who says what goes on inside the school is a whole lot more important than the governance mechanism. You&#8217;ve got plenty of charters that are not taking advantage of their freedom to do things differently, just as you have district, pilot, or magnet schools that are creating amazing learning environments.
Rick: On that note, what would you say is the biggest missed opportunity in the education sphere over the past 25 or 30 years?
Larry: This might sound weird for a high school guy, but we have had data for years that shows that high-quality preschool education has huge impacts on later learning, graduation rates, and job outcomes. Our policymakers have just not had the will to put the resources where they are most needed and would have the greatest impact.
Rick: There&#8217;s a lot of discussion regarding the state of &#8220;school reform.&#8221; What&#8217;s your take?
Larry: &#8220;School reform&#8221; is like the weather. It contains extreme opposites within it. What do I think of it? I don&#8217;t like ice storms, nor do I like top-down reforms that emphasize testing and drive curriculum toward test prep. But when school reform gives teachers and school leaders more autonomy to create curriculum and schools that meet students&#8217; and communities&#8217; needs, it&#8217;s great.
Rick: You&#8217;ve often been labeled as a &#8220;school reformer.&#8221; How do you feel about that label?
Larry: I can&#8217;t resist quoting John Dewey again, who said, &#8220;I&#8217;d rather have one school former than a hundred school reformers.&#8221;
Rick: Is there any moment in your career that you look back on and think, &#8220;Man, I wish I could have done that differently?&#8221;
Larry: Actually, I&#8217;m going to answer that question in a slightly different way. There were two times that I really wanted something—big jobs in each case, and failed to get what I wanted. The first was when I was a candidate for director at Rindge and Latin in Cambridge. Not getting the job led to me to working at the Harvard Center for Law and Education, and that experience made me a much better school director when I finally became one. Later on, I was up for a big job in Washington with the Clinton administration. I didn&#8217;t get that one either, but instead ended up doing the New Urban High School project, which ultimately led me to founding High Tech High. So failure can often turn into something better.
Rick: Looking back over all you&#8217;ve done in education, what makes you the proudest?
Larry: I think it would have to be walking through the halls at High Tech High schools at exhibition time, talking to students about their projects, and talking to graduates when they come back to visit. Knowing that these schools have educated thousands of young people in the past 20 years and hopefully will be here to educate many thousands more in the future.
Rick: OK, last question. Looking forward, what&#8217;s got you pumped in education and learning?
Larry: I&#8217;m excited about elevating and showcasing student work. Students are capable of far more sophisticated work than they are often given the opportunity to do in schools.
This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.
Frederick Hess is director of education policy studies at AEI and an executive editor at Education Next.
This post originally appeared on <a href="http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/rick_hess_straight_up/2019/12/straight_up_conversation_first_american_to_win_wise_prize_for_education_innovation.html" target="_blank">Rick Hess Straight Up</a>.
<div class='shareaholic-canvas' data-app='share_buttons' data-title='Straight Up Conversation: First American to Win WISE Prize for Education Innovation' data-link='https://www.educationnext.org/straight-conversation-first-american-win-wise-prize-education-innovation-rosenstock/' data-summary='Rick talks with Larry Rosenstock, education icon, the founder and CEO of High Tech High, and recent recipient of the WISE Prize for Education, about what he&#039;s learned after a half century in education.' data-app-id='28510232' data-app-id-name='category_below_content'></div>";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:1;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:93:"

";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:3:{s:0:"";a:6:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:92:"Straight Up Conversation: Can Outschool Bring the Gig Economy to K-12? – by Frederick Hess";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:99:"https://www.educationnext.org/straight-up-conversation-can-outschool-bring-gig-economy-k-12-nathoo/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Fri, 04 Oct 2019 09:00:00 +0000";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"category";a:21:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:4:"Blog";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:1;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:9:"Editorial";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:2;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"Technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:3;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:11:"Amir Nathoo";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:4;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"digital learning";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:5;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:13:"digital tools";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:6;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:20:"education technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:7;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:22:"educational technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:8;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:14:"Frederick Hess";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:9;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:17:"Frederick M. Hess";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:10;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:6:"online";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:11;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:13:"online course";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:12;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:14:"online courses";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:13;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"online education";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:14;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:18:"online instruction";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:15;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:15:"online learning";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:16;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:9:"Outschool";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:17;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:9:"Rick Hess";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:18;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:21:"Rick Hess Straight Up";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:19;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:24:"technology and schooling";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:20;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:22:"technology integration";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49691766";s:7:"attribs";a:1:{s:0:"";a:1:{s:11:"isPermaLink";s:5:"false";}}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:179:"Rick talks with the CEO of Outschool, which is a marketplace for live online classes connecting over 30,000 students with over 1,000 teachers in 50 U.S. states and 35 countries.
";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:32:"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/";a:1:{s:7:"creator";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:14:"Frederick Hess";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:40:"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:12706:"Amir Nathoo is CEO of <a href="https://outschool.com/" target="_blank">Outschool</a>, a marketplace for live online classes connecting over 30,000 students with over 1,000 teachers in 50 U.S. states and Washington, D.C., and 35 countries. Amir previously worked at Square, founding the Square Payroll product, and before that he was CEO and co-founder of Trigger.io. I recently talked with Amir about Outschool and virtual classrooms, and here&#8217;s what he said.
Rick Hess: What is Outschool?
<img class="alignright size-full wp-image-49691765" style="float: right;padding-top: 5px;padding-bottom: 5px;padding-left: 5px" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext-oct19-blog-hess-nathoo.png" alt="" width="400" />Amir Nathoo: We&#8217;re a marketplace for live online classes for kids taught via video chat. All Outschool classes are taught by independent teachers, meaning they have autonomy to teach what they want to teach. There are so many parents and students looking for unique classes, and so many talented teachers who want to be more creative with their lessons than they can be in traditional school structures. We provide a convenient and safe platform for teachers to offer those lessons, and a convenient and affordable way for parents and students to find the right classes for them. We started in 2016 and are growing fast. As of this interview, over 40,000 classes have run with over 200,000 class hours.
Rick: How does it work?
Amir: Our platform allows these classes to meet live via video chat. This is really what sets us apart from many other online education options. The kids and teachers in an Outschool class get the chance to socialize and collaborate just like during in-person classes. But parents aren&#8217;t stuck shuttling kids to different locations for each different activity their kids want to pursue. So, we&#8217;re leveraging the connection and scale of the internet, while offering the live communication that happens in a physical classroom. Teachers using Outschool create their own courses, content, requirements, and so on, and we help connect them with students. We provide a secure and collaborative online learning environment.
Rick: Who is Outschool really intended to serve? Is this for students enrolled in traditional schools, for students seeking enrichment, or . . . ?
Amir: Outschool is intended for all kinds of students. Students on our platform come from traditional public schools, private schools, and homeschool environments. They have different motivations for taking classes, too. Some are looking for supplementary education, while others want to foster specific interests. Some students take classes because they need a bit of help in their main course of study. This is where the flexibility of the platform comes in. All of the courses are created and taught individually by teachers who have a passion for the topics they choose to explore. In other words, there&#8217;s no overarching program students have to follow. The courses have specific start and end dates; however, students can sign up for multiple courses at the same time, take additional courses from the same teacher or in the same subject, or even repeat a course, if they want to. Families often tell us how much they love the freedom and personalization they can bring to their child&#8217;s education with Outschool.
Rick: How did Outschool get started? And how did you come to this work?
Amir: My parents were both educators, so there was always a strong focus on education when I grew up. They made sure I had the opportunity to get a good education, and they also supported me learning and discovering outside of school. In fact, I started learning to code at the age of 5 because I was playing around with a computer they got for me. When they saw I was interested, they bought me programming books and arranged for computer science classes with a retired professor, which was hugely influential. Fast forward a few years, and I had a career in tech. I had founded and grown startups before starting Outschool that had nothing to do with education, but forming a company centered on making education more accessible was always at the back of my mind. When I met my co-founders, Nick Grandy and Mikhail Seregine, we started talking and finding common goals, and began to identify a space and an opportunity to realize that dream.
Rick: As you know better than I do, online classes have been around for a long while now. What&#8217;s distinctive about what you all are doing?
Amir: One of the greatest things that distinguishes us in the edtech industry is the fact that most of our classes take place live via video chat with passionate teachers. You can find a wealth of educational videos online from other edtech companies and on sites like YouTube. This content is convenient—you can watch it whenever you have time, though it&#8217;s often not engaging. While we have some pre-recorded classes for students who might live in an area or in circumstances preventing them from joining the live classes, where Outschool really shines is the &#8220;face-to-face&#8221; engagement where dialogue can take place. It&#8217;s incredibly valuable to be able to ask for explanations from a teacher as he or she is presenting a concept or collaborate with other students to discuss a topic or solve a problem. You can&#8217;t replace that with videos and worksheets.
Rick: Outschool offers over 8,000 classes. Can you talk a bit about how you curate the offerings?
Amir: Teachers use Outschool to create the classes they&#8217;ve always wanted to teach and come up with a huge variety of high-quality offerings. Classes range from one-time enrichment lessons to semester-long core courses. They&#8217;re offered across all subjects, and our learners range from age 3 to 18. We encourage teachers to get creative and link learners&#8217; interests to academic subjects. We review all classes for quality and adherence to our content policies before they&#8217;re published. Along with courses you might expect, like algebra and U.S. history, teachers respond to learners&#8217; requests to help them learn architecture through Minecraft, Spanish by singing Taylor Swift songs in Spanish, biology through Pokémon, and How to Become a Ninja. These are just a few examples of the innovative and engaging topics that teachers are offering.
Rick: As you noted, Outschool hosts some pretty whimsical offerings, like those classes on Pokémon, <a href="https://qz.com/1625384/spanish-with-taylor-swift-potions-with-harry-potter-outschool-wants-kids-to-pursue-their-passions/" target="_blank">Dungeons and Dragons</a>, and <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/26/how-to-raise-from-sesame-street/" target="_blank">Gnomes, Trolls, and Fairies.</a> Can you talk about the philosophy guiding which courses you offer, and how you juggle the entertaining and the educational?
Amir: One of the great things about our teachers and the classes they offer is that they help students learn and grow both academically and personally. The Dungeons and Dragons classes, for example, provide a fantastic venue for helping students develop skills like communication and collaboration, which are important life skills to nurture. We also have many classes that tie core academics with entertaining subjects, such as a Harry Potter &#8220;potions&#8221; class that teaches chemistry, or a Pokémon-themed writing class to help introduce potentially daunting concepts in a more familiar and engaging way. Connecting entertainment with education like this can also help students look more critically at the shows or books they like and find ways they relate to the things they&#8217;re learning in school, and vice-versa. In addition, pairing a topic students already love with a new one can introduce them to something that may become a lifelong hobby or even a career. Our mission is really to inspire kids to love learning. I don&#8217;t know if or how I would have found my way to tech if I hadn&#8217;t stumbled upon a love of programming as a kid. We want to give our students the opportunity to stumble upon their own passions in whatever form they take.
Rick: How do you find your teachers, and where do they come from? How do you ensure the quality of the teaching?
Amir: Our teachers come from all over the place, which underscores one of our goals of making education available for anyone with a fast-enough internet connection. Many teach or have taught, either in a traditional school or at home by homeschooling their own kids. We have plenty of other teachers, though, who came to education by way of the subject they&#8217;re teaching. For example, we have one teacher who is a human rights attorney and <a href="https://blog.outschool.com/globetrotting-professor-reveals-the-world-of-human-rights/" target="_blank">has worked for the United Nations</a> who teaches classes about diplomacy, international law, and debate. Maintaining a safe and high-quality learning environment for our students is extremely important to us. We do thorough background checks and interview all of our teachers, and we select those who have teaching experience or an expertise or passion they want to share with learners. We make sure to support those teachers after we bring them on by providing training and professional development to make sure they are all the best at their jobs as they can be. We also monitor feedback and student satisfaction scores to make sure they&#8217;re resonating with students. No teacher will have perfect reviews—what works for one student may not be effective for another—but we do review those and address any potential issues before they become problems.
Rick: Can you talk a bit about the costs and the financial model—how much do parents pay on average, and how much does it cost you to keep this platform running?
Amir: Outschool classes start from $5 and go for an average of $18 per class hour. Teachers set the price per learner according to the expected class size, the time and materials required to deliver the class, and the teacher&#8217;s level of experience and qualification in the subject. Parents pay the price listed on the class page and Outschool takes a 30 percent fee. Small-group classes are less expensive for parents and more lucrative for teachers than one-on-one tutoring because costs are split between participants. Our live online format also removes the need for facilities and the time and costs associated with travel to an in-person activity. This lets us offer violin classes, for example, starting at just over $10 per hour compared to the typical $50 per hour cost of local classes.
Rick: Last question. If there are one or two big things about online classes that most people don&#8217;t realize or fully appreciate, what are they?
Amir: Many people still associate online classes with long, boring videos, and some people still think that our classes are only for students who are homeschooled. Neither of these things is true. The classes offered on Outschool are dynamic, engaging, and fun—and are available for kids everywhere. Technology has really shrunk the world, and we believe we&#8217;re taking advantage of that in a way that benefits our students wherever they may be.
This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.
Frederick Hess is director of education policy studies at AEI and an executive editor at Education Next.
This post originally appeared at <a href="http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/rick_hess_straight_up/2019/10/straight_up_conversation_outschool_ceo_amir_nathoo.html" target="_blank">Rick Hess Straight Up</a>.
<div class='shareaholic-canvas' data-app='share_buttons' data-title='Straight Up Conversation: Can Outschool Bring the Gig Economy to K-12?' data-link='https://www.educationnext.org/straight-up-conversation-can-outschool-bring-gig-economy-k-12-nathoo/' data-summary='Rick talks with the CEO of Outschool, which is a marketplace for live online classes connecting over 30,000 students with over 1,000 teachers in 50 U.S. states and 35 countries.' data-app-id='28510232' data-app-id-name='category_below_content'></div>";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:2;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:87:"

";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:3:{s:0:"";a:6:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:98:"Straight Up Conversation: Microsoft Chief Talks Augmented Reality in Schools – by Frederick Hess";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:103:"https://www.educationnext.org/straight-up-conversation-microsoft-chief-talks-augmented-reality-schools/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Mon, 23 Sep 2019 09:02:22 +0000";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"category";a:19:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:4:"Blog";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:1;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:9:"Editorial";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:2;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"Technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:3;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:17:"augmented reality";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:4;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:9:"Dan Ayoub";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:5;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"digital learning";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:6;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:20:"education technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:7;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:22:"educational technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:8;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:14:"Frederick Hess";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:9;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:17:"Frederick M. Hess";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:10;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:4:"Halo";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:11;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:9:"Microsoft";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:12;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:9:"Rick Hess";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:13;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:21:"Rick Hess Straight Up";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:14;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:4:"STEM";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:15;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:27:"technology in the classroom";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:16;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:22:"technology integration";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:17;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"virtual learning";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:18;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:15:"virtual reality";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49691652";s:7:"attribs";a:1:{s:0:"";a:1:{s:11:"isPermaLink";s:5:"false";}}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:206:"Dan Ayoub, who helms Microsoft's education team after a decade leading the famed Halo gaming franchise, discusses the possibilities and pitfalls of bringing augmented and virtual reality to the classroom.
";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:32:"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/";a:1:{s:7:"creator";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:14:"Frederick Hess";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:40:"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:11780:"Dan Ayoub is the general manager of mixed reality, artificial intelligence, and STEM education for Microsoft. Before that, Dan worked for 20 years in the games industry, most notably as the development lead for the iconic title Halo. I recently talked with Dan about Microsoft&#8217;s work to bring augmented and virtual reality education to the classroom, and here&#8217;s what he said.
Rick Hess: Dan, you&#8217;re general manager of Microsoft&#8217;s education team. Can you say a bit about what that actually involves?
<img class="alignright size-full wp-image-49691651" style="float: right;padding-top: 5px;padding-bottom: 5px;padding-left: 5px" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext-sept19-blog-hess-ayoub.png" alt="" width="350" />Dan Ayoub: Thanks, Rick! The high-level goal for the team is to empower every learner on the planet to achieve more. Which is a pretty big task! So what that means concretely is we make products and curriculum for educators and learners of all ages, we partner with classrooms to implement technology, and work with researchers on where the puck is going. In addition to what you generally think of when you think of Microsoft, we have tools for collaboration, tools to help students learn to read, gaming like Minecraft, and so on. We have a central education group, and of course a number of people are working on education across the company. It also involves fostering lifelong learning and future skills like cloud, AI, and data science.
Rick: You came to this work from outside of education, after leading the famed Halo game-development team for eight years and after nearly two decades in gaming. What led you to make the jump?
Dan: It&#8217;s kind of crazy that after 18 years of making games, to do a jump like this. I came to Microsoft to continue working on games about a decade ago; about seven or eight years ago, I got really interested in education from an intellectual standpoint, probably related to having kids. At the same time, working with all of this future tech and working at a big tech company, I started to see where things are headed, and it became really clear that the current way of thinking wasn&#8217;t preparing kids for the future. So there I am working on Halo at Microsoft but fascinated with this problem and having no idea how to get involved. Then I was offered a role in the mixed-reality team to look at how we could use the technology for helping students, and it just seemed like the perfect intersection of my development background and my interests.
Rick: It often seems like game designers have figured out some things about engaging youths that have yet to show up in educational software. Is that fair?
Dan: There&#8217;s a great quote by Marshall McLuhan: &#8220;Anyone who tries to make a distinction between education and entertainment doesn&#8217;t know the first thing about either.&#8221; I think it&#8217;s hard to compare when the context is so different, but I think there&#8217;s a lot of what games do well that make sense in the classroom. Like making the student the center of the experience, gradually giving skills, and building on them. I think games are also great at teaching grit, resilience, and the understanding that failure is a part of success. Games are also increasingly social in nature, which is really interesting to think about in educational scenarios.
Rick: What&#8217;s the one big lesson you&#8217;ve brought over from your time at Halo, and how has that affected your work at Microsoft?
Dan: Designing for the user. In this case, the final user is the student, but you need to think about the actual teacher using the tech as the primary user, because if they aren&#8217;t comfortable using the technology, it isn&#8217;t making it into the classroom, or you need a ton of professional development to make it happen. I&#8217;d also add that in games we are constantly listening to our customers on how to make their experience better, and this is something I have definitely brought with me. Finally, it&#8217;s all about engagement, and that is really key. Working on Halo gives me incredible cred with students when I go into classrooms.
Rick: Ha, I can imagine! So what have you found to be the biggest bumps, headaches, or disconnects when it comes to designing useful educational software—and helping educators use it effectively?
Dan: I think two things come to mind. First is the notion of technology as a silver bullet; at the end of the day, it&#8217;s all about the teacher, and if you bring technology into the classroom and use it the same way you used a paper and pencil, and don&#8217;t adapt, then you aren&#8217;t going to reap the benefits. At the end of the day, great technology will allow a great teacher to do more and help their students to succeed, but that involves changing how they work in the classroom. I think the second is making sure the software is user-friendly to the teachers and helping them to use it effectively through training, support, and so on.
Rick: Can you talk about one or two of the really eye-opening, head-shaking developmental things you all are working on that might truly one day be transformative—but perhaps not for a decade or two?
Dan: I think two of the most transformative, jaw-dropping things coming down the road are augmented reality and artificial intelligence. Both are in very early stages, but there is massive potential for them both. I think both will completely change education forever once they reach scale and the tech is ready.
Rick: OK. I&#8217;ve heard you talk about the distinction between augmented and virtual reality before. Can you explain the difference for a general audience?
Dan: Understanding the difference can be tricky, for sure. In a nutshell, virtual reality is entirely immersive, so you put on a headset and you are transported to a different world and have no awareness of what&#8217;s going on around you. The immersion limits your ability to work collaboratively with people near you, though you can co-habit a virtual environment, but that immersion can be beneficial for people who may have challenges focusing and is great for singular experiences. It&#8217;s also been shown to be great for empathy-building. Augmented reality, like a Hololens, works by creating holograms over your field of vision, so you can still see everything around you—this is great for classes in the same room together.
Rick: So what do we know about how well augmented reality can work?
Dan: We spent a lot of time researching the effectiveness of the technology, and there were a bunch of studies pointing to the potential, but I was really eager to see the practical results. Here&#8217;s what we know: Some partners are seeing a full-letter grade improvement when using the technology. Others are seeing up to a 60 percent reduction in the time it takes to teach their content. All of this is due to the lower cognitive load required to learn while using the hardware. Outside of the classroom, this tech is being used today in corporate and vocational training and workflows in industries like automotive and design, to name a few.
Rick: How about virtual reality?
Dan: Similar to augmented reality, we are seeing great results in the classroom. VR is also being used in corporate training as well; Walmart is using the tech to help train their employees, and every day I see new cases of the tech at work. It&#8217;s really quite exciting because it&#8217;s all still so new, and people are crafting some amazing things in the workplace and the classroom—I am seeing a bunch of really interesting use cases in vocational education as well. We recently made over 30 hours of standards-aligned content free for educators, and it&#8217;s been great to see the response.
Rick: What are some of the ways that K-12 schooling might ultimately benefit from virtual or augmented reality?
Dan: As time goes on, I have two scenarios I am extremely excited about: first is the potential for distance learning, as you can have students collaborate with other students all over the planet in virtual environments; you can also learn from literally the best people on the planet regardless of where they are and be in the same room with them. The second is as we can weave AI into the experience, we can start to get to the idyllic personalized learning or 1:1 learning scenario for every student. Another area I am extremely excited about is differentiated learning—so how do we use this technology to diagnose things like dyslexia earlier through eye tracking or to assist autistic children?
Rick: On a somewhat different note, as someone who comes to ed tech from outside, can you offer some tips as to the pitfalls those making ed tech need to be focused on?
Dan: I have been really vocal that companies focused on the wrong thing in the early days by creating these showcase experiences that focused more on showy visuals than actual curriculum. Our job is to help teachers do their job, so we made a decision to focus on standards-aligned content that would help teachers do what they need to do, and the response to this has been great. Like any educational technology, it&#8217;s a tool that can help students immensely, but it requires thinking about how you&#8217;ll approach it. At the end of the day, it&#8217;s still all about pedagogy.
Rick: In education, we have a long history of getting jazzed about the possibilities of new tech—only to be disappointed, time and again. What&#8217;s your advice for schools or systems that want to avoid the usual rash of mistakes?
Dan: I think first and foremost, if you just adopt technology and continue to teach like we did during the Industrial Revolution, then ed tech isn&#8217;t going to fix all your problems. I like to say that you need to be diligent, learn about the tech and how to maximize it, and adapt it to your needs, but also change how you teach. Also, please ask us—we love to talk to educators and we prefer to talk about the problems they are trying to solve rather than just pushing technology. Let us know what you&#8217;re trying to accomplish and help us to make our products better for you.
This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.
Frederick Hess is director of education policy studies at AEI and an executive editor at Education Next.
This post originally appeared on <a href="http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/rick_hess_straight_up/2019/09/straight_up_conversation_microsoft_chief_talks_virtual_reality_in_schools.html" target="_blank">Rick Hess Straight Up</a>.
<div class='shareaholic-canvas' data-app='share_buttons' data-title='Straight Up Conversation: Microsoft Chief Talks Augmented Reality in Schools' data-link='https://www.educationnext.org/straight-up-conversation-microsoft-chief-talks-augmented-reality-schools/' data-summary='Dan Ayoub, who helms Microsoft&#039;s education team after a decade leading the famed Halo gaming franchise, discusses the possibilities and pitfalls of bringing augmented and virtual reality to the classroom.' data-app-id='28510232' data-app-id-name='category_below_content'></div>";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:3;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:93:"

";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:3:{s:0:"";a:6:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:81:"Robots Are Teaching Language Skills, But Are They Any Good? – by Frederick Hess";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:67:"https://www.educationnext.org/robots-teaching-language-skills-good/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Wed, 10 Jul 2019 10:00:13 +0000";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"category";a:7:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:4:"Blog";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:1;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"Curriculum";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:2;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:9:"Editorial";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:3;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"Technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:4;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:7:"ed tech";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:5;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:24:"foreign language courses";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:6;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:8:"robotics";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49690806";s:7:"attribs";a:1:{s:0:"";a:1:{s:11:"isPermaLink";s:5:"false";}}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:82:"Robots may work well sometimes. Here's what we know about why, when, and for whom.";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:32:"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/";a:1:{s:7:"creator";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:14:"Frederick Hess";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:40:"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:4950:"<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-49690808" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext-jul19-blog-hess-robots-language-teaching.jpg" alt="" width="690" /> 
Education technology has many faces. A prominent one has long been computer-assisted language learning, offering great promise for struggling readers, non-English speakers, or those seeking to master a second tongue. And, in recent years, the technology has raced ahead. No longer do students simply repeat what they hear through headphones or get instruction from a computer screen—now they can talk to ROBOTS. How cool is that? The question, of course, is: Do robots actually help?
Earlier this spring, in the Review of Educational Research, three Dutch academics offered a useful survey of what we know about robot instruction on vocabulary, reading skills, grammar, and more, in &#8220;<a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.3102/0034654318821286" target="_blank">Social Robots for Language Learning: A Review.</a>&#8221; Social robots, as Rianne van den Berghe et al. explain, are &#8220;specifically designed to interact and communicate with people, either semiautonomously or autonomously . . . following behavioral norms that are typical for human interaction.&#8221; And, yep, unlike computer-based intelligent tutoring systems, they have actual bodies.
Robots potentially have two big advantages over other forms of ed tech, van den Berghe et al. note. One is that they allow learners to interact with a real-life environment (and not just a computer screen). The second is that they allow for more natural interaction than do other forms of tech because the robots are often &#8220;humanoid or in the shape of an animal.&#8221;
So, what does the current research say about what these robots mean for language learning?
First, robots may be more effective in small doses. Of the studies reviewed, three examined word learning for preschoolers over multiple sessions, while three others examined word learning in a single-session format. Turns out that the multi-session trials found &#8220;limited learning&#8221; while the results of the one-shot exercises showed more promise. This led the authors to speculate that any robot impact may be partially produced by sheer novelty—an effect which may wear off with time.
Second, when it comes to word learning, the authors find evidence suggesting that &#8220;children may learn equally well when being taught by a robot or by a human teacher.&#8221; In fact, one study reported that students interpreted nonverbal cues (like &#8220;eye gaze&#8221;) equally well from a teacher and a Dragonbot robot.
Third, robots appear to have a consistent impact on student &#8220;engagement, attitude, and motivation&#8221;—an effect that&#8217;s &#8220;much clearer&#8221; than that on learning outcomes. The researchers suggest that this is about robots and not just technology, observing that no similar effects are evident when it comes to things like interactive white boards, blogs, or virtual worlds. What&#8217;s going on is unclear, but there may well be something distinctive about the interaction with your cute, friendly neighborhood robot.
Fourth, on skills other than word learning, the research is reported to be sparse. And, those studies&#8217; results that did examine the impact of robot instruction on reading, grammar, and speaking were mixed—with both positive and negative findings.
There&#8217;s a lot more to be gleaned, and the piece is worth checking out—even if it&#8217;s something of a slog. In particular, the authors raise important, textured points about how the novelty effect, the degree to which robots are &#8220;teleoperated&#8221; by controllers, robot behavioral quirks, and much else mean that it&#8217;s unlikely robots are going to work miracles in schooling.
Far more likely is that robots will work well sometimes, in some circumstances, for some students. And a maddening, unsexy task for educators and researchers is to try to figure out why, when, and for whom—which is the same challenge that arises when evaluating any new technology or tool. In other words, the more robots invade our schools, the more things stay the same.
Frederick Hess is director of education policy studies at AEI and an executive editor at Education Next.
This post originally appeared on <a href="http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/rick_hess_straight_up/" target="_blank">Rick Hess Straight Up</a>.
<div class='shareaholic-canvas' data-app='share_buttons' data-title='Robots Are Teaching Language Skills, But Are They Any Good?' data-link='https://www.educationnext.org/robots-teaching-language-skills-good/' data-summary='Robots may work well sometimes. Here&#039;s what we know about why, when, and for whom.' data-app-id='28510232' data-app-id-name='category_below_content'></div>";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:5;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:78:"

";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:3:{s:0:"";a:6:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:86:"The Disruptive Playbook for Bootcamps to Upend Higher Education – by Michael B. Horn";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:83:"https://www.educationnext.org/disruptive-playbook-bootcamps-upend-higher-education/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Mon, 20 May 2019 04:03:01 +0000";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"category";a:16:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:4:"Blog";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:1;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:9:"Editorial";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:2;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"Higher Education";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:3;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"Technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:4;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:49:"A New U: Faster + Cheaper Alternatives to College";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:5;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"coding bootcamps";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:6;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:11:"DevBootcamp";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:7;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"disruption";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:8;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:21:"disruptive innovation";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:9;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:20:"education technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:10;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:22:"educational technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:11;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:9:"higher ed";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:12;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"higher education";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:13;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:15:"Michael B. Horn";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:14;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:12:"Michael Horn";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:15;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"Ryan Craig";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49690178";s:7:"attribs";a:1:{s:0:"";a:1:{s:11:"isPermaLink";s:5:"false";}}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:157:"An unbundled higher education system could focus on helping learners earn and learn, as opposed to the existing pattern of learn and then later, maybe, earn.";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:32:"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/";a:1:{s:7:"creator";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:15:"Michael B. Horn";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:40:"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:6658:"<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-49690177" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext-may19-blog-horn-bootcamp.png" alt="" width="690" />
Will bootcamps and other last-mile providers disrupt higher education?
Ryan Craig, an investor and writer thinks so. His most recent book, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B079KHP8JD/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&amp;btkr=1" target="_blank">A New U: Faster + Cheaper Alternatives to College</a>, makes a compelling case that the disruption is already underway.
As the person who likes to be ahead of the curve on forecasting disruptive innovations in education, reading the book caused me to write that “A New U is the book I wish I had written.”
But disrupting traditional colleges and universities is a tall order. For bootcamps to do so, they will have to do more than initially serve students who are not being served by traditional higher education with a more affordable, convenient offering that is perceived as primitive and with a technology enabler that allows them to improve even as they make money and don’t cause the majority of traditional colleges and universities to compete directly. After establishing this foothold, they will have to go “up-market,” and serve more of higher education beyond technology and an on-ramp into a career.
Against that backdrop, Richard Price and Alana Dunagan recently published an important paper, “<a href="https://www.christenseninstitute.org/publications/bootcamps/" target="_blank">Betting on bootcamps: How short-course training programs could change the landscape of higher ed</a>,” that outlines five different scenarios for the future of bootcamps. Parsing these scenarios helps provide a window into whether and how bootcamps will—or will not—disrupt higher education.
Scenario 1: In the first scenario they present, bootcamps get stuck and fail to disrupt higher education. As Price and Dunagan note, even if an upstart provider properly adopts a disruptive stance, that strategy leads only to 37% of market entrants establishing a successful growth company, according to Clayton Christensen’s seminal book, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Innovators-Dilemma-Revolutionary-Change-Business/dp/0062060244" target="_blank">The Innovator’s Dilemma</a>. Although that rate of success is more than 6 times better than a startup that chooses to compete head-on with incumbents, it’s hardly a guarantee of success. In particular, the authors note that there are several things that could limit the growth of bootcamps, from employers not buying into the bootcamps being unable to serve new fields beyond technology.
Scenario 2: Democrats and Republicans alike are expressing interest in extending federal dollars to bootcamps in an effort to have them serve low-income students. As Price and Dunagan wrote, accessing federal dollars could either incentivize bootcamps to chase enrollments regardless of outcomes—which would likely hurt bootcamps odds of disrupting higher education in the longer run—or it could represent a place to experiment with new funding models focused on outcomes that could set bootcamps on an exciting and expansive trajectory. Policy wonks beware.
Scenario 3: One way bootcamps could serve wider swaths of the market is by expanding into lifelong learning—that is, they create an organization that not only helps equip people with the skills for a first job in a career, but then continues to serve them throughout their careers. Taking this tack could also help students build the conceptual foundations that some worry graduates of bootcamps don’t have. For this approach to work, Price and Dunagan argue that employer partnerships around upskilling employees that allow bootcamps to reduce acquisition costs will be critical so bootcamps can preserve and grow profit margins. I can imagine a second way that bootcamps could make this model work, as they become a one-stop education shop to serve their alumni and grow with them over time.
Scenario 4: The flip of scenario three is a scenario in which bootcamps start educating employees in fields outside of technology where there is clear employer demand and a shortage of labor supply. Moving outside of technology could be messier because the skills at the heart of successful employees aren’t always so clear, the authors wrote—but for those bootcamps that can master it, the upside could be tremendous.
Scenario 5: A combination of the above scenarios occurs in which bootcamps achieve breadth and depth and disruption ensues. Price and Dunagan paint a grim picture of what disruption might look like for traditional colleges and universities, which would unfold gradually. Consistent with research from my forthcoming book, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/1119570115/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_0oAICb7N6WA35" target="_blank">Choosing College</a>, the authors suggest that there would likely continue to be some demand for a residential college experience. They provocatively suggest, however, that in this scenario “this experience will no longer reside in the public conscience as the default college experience” but instead as “a particular offering in a larger, more modular and unbundled higher education system whose focus is on helping learners earn and learn, as opposed to the existing pattern of learn and then later, maybe, earn.”
It’s a provocative vision and a compelling roadmap of what has to occur if bootcamps are to disrupt traditional colleges and universities, that sets up a clear set of road signs to watch to see if bootcamps are indeed going to make a run at disruption.
Michael Horn is a co-founder of and a distinguished fellow at the Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation.
This post originally appeared on <a href="https://www.christenseninstitute.org/blog/the-disruptive-playbook-for-bootcamps-to-upend-higher-education/" target="_blank">ChristensenInstitute.org</a>.
<div class='shareaholic-canvas' data-app='share_buttons' data-title='The Disruptive Playbook for Bootcamps to Upend Higher Education' data-link='https://www.educationnext.org/disruptive-playbook-bootcamps-upend-higher-education/' data-summary='An unbundled higher education system could focus on helping learners earn and learn, as opposed to the existing pattern of learn and then later, maybe, earn.' data-app-id='28510232' data-app-id-name='category_below_content'></div>";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:7;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:81:"

";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:5:{s:0:"";a:7:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:61:"Is Wi-Fi a Health Threat in Schools? – by Kenneth R. Foster";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:82:"https://www.educationnext.org/is-wi-fi-health-threat-schools-sorting-fact-fiction/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"comments";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:91:"https://www.educationnext.org/is-wi-fi-health-threat-schools-sorting-fact-fiction/#comments";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Tue, 16 Apr 2019 04:04:09 +0000";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"category";a:14:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:8:"Features";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:1;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:7:"Journal";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:2;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"Technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:3;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:20:"education technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:4;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:22:"educational technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:5;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:8:"internet";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:6;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:17:"Kenneth R. Foster";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:7;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:9:"radiation";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:8;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:14:"student health";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:9;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:24:"technological innovation";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:10;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:24:"technology and schooling";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:11;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:27:"technology in the classroom";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:12;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:22:"technology integration";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:13;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:5:"wi-fi";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49689418";s:7:"attribs";a:1:{s:0:"";a:1:{s:11:"isPermaLink";s:5:"false";}}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:27:"Sorting fact from fiction
";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:32:"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/";a:1:{s:7:"creator";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:17:"Kenneth R. Foster";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:40:"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:32245:"<img class="alignright size-full wp-image-49689412" style="float: right;padding-top: 5px;padding-bottom: 5px;padding-left: 5px" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext_XIX_3_foster_img01.png" alt="Wi-Fi illustration" width="400" />Since the early 2000s, when wireless connectivity and the Internet evolved into everyday technologies, they have come to pervade our home and work lives, revolutionizing the way we share and access information. Wi-Fi circuits, which connect a device to a wireless network and the Internet, are incorporated into billions of devices, ranging from bathroom scales and “smart” electric outlets to equipment that streams movies and music. Wi-Fi is installed on our smartphones and laptops, at home and in the workplace, in cafés and airports, and of course, in schools everywhere.
Digital learning and wireless connectivity have become so entrenched in schools that many educators now consider high-speed Internet access a requirement for effective teaching. The federal government, via the Federal Communications Commission, subsidizes wireless connectivity and other technology in schools through its E-rate program. Advocates aspire to equip every student in America with wireless access, and the organization EducationSuperHighway estimates that as of 2017, 88 percent of schools had robust Wi-Fi capability in their classrooms, up from 25 percent just four years earlier (see Figure 1). Some school districts are providing Wi-Fi access to places like football fields and school buses to help students without reliable Internet access at home complete and submit assignments.
But schools are finding that a substantial number of people have health concerns about the radio frequency, or RF, signals emitted by Wi-Fi devices, even as exposure levels are far below government safety limits. Objectors have banded together to protest what they consider to be the health hazards of wireless technologies, including Wi-Fi in schools. The 2018 documentary Generation Zapped chronicled the efforts of key players in this campaign, who blame RF exposures from low-level sources such as Wi-Fi for a host of detrimental health effects, from headaches and hearing loss to Alzheimer’s and brain cancer. Some scientists and physicians support their views (even though they might not agree on just what those adverse health effects might be), and the issue has been taken up by alternative-medicine proponents such as the physician Joseph Mercola (better known for his anti-vaccine advocacy).
While digital culture has brought great benefits, it has certainly had negative consequences as well—such as loss of privacy, disruptive hacking, and harms to children from misuse of cell phones. But need we worry about the health risks of environmental exposure to radio frequency energy? The evidence we have accumulated so far would suggest not. National health agencies have credibly concluded that no adverse health effects have been demonstrated at radio frequency exposures that fall within established safety guidelines—and the exposures from Wi-Fi fall well below those limits.
Yet a substantial number of people do worry about exposure to RF energy in the environment. In 2017, noted risk expert Peter Wiedemann, then at the University of Wollongong in Australia, reported on a survey of 2,454 people in six European countries about their concerns over electromagnetic-field exposure. The investigators found that 40 percent of the respondents had some concerns, with 12 percent describing themselves as “enduringly concerned”—that is, frequently thinking and talking about electromagnetic-field exposure. Most of their worries were related to radio frequency sources. Cell towers, Wi-Fi, wireless-enabled electric utility meters, and other sources of “involuntary” exposure were noted as particularly troubling. Numerous websites serve as echo chambers for these apprehensions, offering alarming interpretations of scientific developments. Some of the sites sell RF-shielding garments or provide templates of letters for concerned individuals to send to political leaders.
<a href="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext_XIX_3_foster_fig01.png" target="_blank"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-49689405" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext_XIX_3_foster_fig01-small.png" alt="Schools Have Rapidly Added Wi-Fi to Classrooms (Figure 1)" width="690" /></a>
The Science behind RF Energy
With any potentially hazardous agent, the dose makes the poison. At high exposure levels, radio frequency energy can indeed be hazardous, producing burns or other thermal damage, but these exposures are typically incurred only in occupational settings near high-powered RF transmitters, or sometimes in medical procedures gone awry. Two fundamental questions about any health risk are: what kinds of adverse effects may possibly occur under given exposure levels, and how much exposure do people actually receive in the real world?
<div id="attachment_49689413" style="width: 360px" class="wp-caption alignright"><img class="size-full wp-image-49689413" style="float: right;padding-top: 5px;padding-bottom: 5px;padding-left: 5px" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext_XIX_3_foster_img02.png" alt="Generation Zapped film poster" width="350" />The 2018 documentary Generation Zapped chronicled the campaigns of activists who warn about what they claim are dangers of Wi-Fi exposure.</div>
The very word “radiation” is scary to many people, who may associate it with overexposure to x-rays, or the cancers induced by massive exposures during the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident. But, technically speaking, radiation is simply energy moving through space. Thus, even light from a flashlight is a form of radiation. Radio frequency energy transmitted from an antenna is also a form of radiation, but unlike x-rays and other forms of potentially dangerous radiation, RF energy is non-ionizing: that is, the photons that carry the signal do not have enough energy to disrupt molecules in the body to form free radicals, which can damage cells and tissues. RF energy has nothing in common with ionizing radiation in terms of potential health effects. The term electromagnetic field, or EMF, refers to electromagnetic energy in general, regardless of frequency. In health discussions, the term is used broadly to refer to any part of the electromagnetic spectrum, most typically to power-line fields (at 50 or 60 hertz) or radio frequency fields.
“Wi-Fi” does not refer to any specific physical agent, but rather is a trademarked name for devices that conform to a set of engineering standards that enable them to communicate through wireless links. Currently, Wi-Fi devices transmit in two bands of the radio frequency spectrum, near 2.45 and 5 gigahertz, but additional frequency bands will be used in the future. The lower frequency range is part of the industrial, scientific, and medical band that has long been used by household microwave ovens, diathermy and other medical equipment, industrial heaters, and many other devices. Wi-Fi operates in the microwave part of the spectrum (300 megahertz to 300 gigahertz). Nearly the entire microwave region of the spectrum is used for something—cell phones, broadcast applications, radar, industrial heating equipment, and, since the late 1990s, a vast number of low-powered communications devices, of which Wi-Fi is only one of several classes.
A Wi-Fi network (technically called a wireless local-area network) is configured around sets of low-powered RF transmitters. Access points, which in schools are typically mounted high on walls or above ceiling tiles, allow Wi-Fi-enabled devices (called clients) to connect to the network and access the Internet. In a school, these devices would include laptops, tablet computers, and often printers and audiovisual equipment in classrooms.
Wi-Fi devices transmit streams of brief radio frequency pulses at somewhat lower peak power levels than those used by cell phones, and at a very low-duty cycle (fraction of time spent transmitting). Only one device can transmit at a time on a Wi-Fi network. If the network is operating at full capacity (an unusual situation, even in a classroom of students accessing the network), the total amount of RF energy transmitted on the network might be roughly comparable to that from a single cell phone in use in the room or to the small amounts of microwave energy that typically leak from the front door of a kitchen microwave oven while in use. These signals come, in turn, from every device that is connected to the network, most of which are located at some distance from any given individual in the room.
Individuals who are in the vicinity of a Wi-Fi network are exposed to radio frequency signals in two ways: from the typically weak signals in the network and also from the generally stronger but more intermittent signals coming from RF transmitters (such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and cell phone antennas) in the user’s own device. Any wireless device that is legally sold in the United States must be authorized by the Federal Communications Commission, which requires appropriate testing by manufacturers to document compliance with the commission’s safety limits. Those regulatory thresholds are far below any demonstrably hazardous exposure level that could cause excessive heating of tissue, which cannot happen with low-powered Wi-Fi equipment.
<a href="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext_XIX_3_foster_fig02.png" target="_blank"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-49689407" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext_XIX_3_foster_fig02-small.png" alt="Wi-Fi Is a Small Fraction of Total Radio Frequency Exposure (Figure 2)" width="690" /></a>
Exposure in Schools
Numerous surveys have examined levels of exposure to the population from environmental sources of radio frequency energy. While these levels vary greatly, the largest exposure an individual generally incurs is from use of a cell phone. Below that level are signals from cell phones operated in the person’s vicinity. Still lower, on average, are signals from many other sources in the environment: cell towers, broadcast and communications transmitters outside the home, and microwave ovens, wireless baby monitors, cordless phones, Wi-Fi, and other RF-emitting devices within the home. The cumulative exposure from all sources in ordinary environments is invariably a tiny fraction of established safety limits. Those limits are designed to provide adequate protection against all established hazards from radio frequency energy over any duration of exposure.
Two studies illustrate the exposure levels involved. In 2017, Lena Hedendahl and colleagues in Sweden fitted 18 teachers in seven schools with instruments that recorded exposure from multiple RF sources many times a day for entire school days. The average RF exposures to the teachers from Wi-Fi in school were comparable to that from sources outside the school (chiefly, for those schools, “downlink” signals from nearby cellular base station antennas, which are the yard-long antennas seen today on many rooftops) and considerably below “uplink” signals from cell phones in the teachers’ vicinity. All exposure levels were a tiny fraction of U.S. and European safety limits.
More recently, a large multinational group of investigators led by Elisabeth Cardis of the University of Barcelona surveyed radio frequency exposures to 529 children ages 8 to 18 living in five countries (Denmark, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Switzerland, and Spain). The investigators fitted the kids with personal RF dosimeters that recorded their exposures from a variety of sources in and out of school for up to three days. Consistent with other studies, Wi-Fi amounted to only a small fraction of the children’s total RF exposure (see Figure 2). RF exposures in the schools, the study found, were generally comparable to or lower than those in other environments: 95 percent of the children had Wi-Fi at home, and three quarters of them used cell phones, with more than one third of the students accessing the Internet via cell phones for more than 30 minutes a day.
The overall conclusion from these and other surveys is that exposures to radio frequency signals from Wi-Fi are far below accepted safety limits, and generally lower than exposures from other RF sources in the environment. And while our environment is awash with radio frequency energy, Wi-Fi is only a small part of the total picture.
<a href="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext_XIX_3_foster_fig03.png" target="_blank"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-49689409" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext_XIX_3_foster_fig03-small.png" alt="Thousands of Studies, but No Convincing Evidence of Harm (Figure 3)" width="690" /></a>
Research on Health Effects
Spurred in part by public concerns, many studies on radio frequency exposure—nearly 4,000 to date—have been done over the past half century. From the beginning, a large share of these studies used radio frequency energy in the industrial, scientific, and medical band in which Wi-Fi operates (see Figure 3), in part to address occupational health concerns from the use of high-powered microwave sources. More recently, starting in the mid-1990s, many additional studies have investigated RF exposures at cell phone frequencies (typically, 800–1950 megahertz). A small but growing number of studies have considered RF exposures from Wi-Fi signals.
The studies vary widely in quality and approach. A comparatively few studies have used standard protocols and exacting quality standards, as a drug or chemical company would in assessing the safety of a product. Such rigorous studies are expensive undertakings because they require large numbers of subjects, exacting methodology, and sophisticated engineering to produce well-defined RF exposures.
The great majority of these studies, though, are not standard risk-assessment investigations. A large share of them are smaller, often exploratory studies that vary greatly in quality, in the endpoint they investigate, and in their relevance to health. Many are one-of-a-kind studies, not replicated even in the investigators’ own labs, and many have used RF exposures well above safety limits, where heating of the sample may have produced effects. A large proportion have serious methodological problems, such as inadequate assessment of exposure levels or a lack of appropriate controls, both of which prevent reliable interpretation of the results.
While many of the studies—particularly the better-designed ones—reported no statistically significant effects of exposure apart from those caused by heating, many others have reported impacts of some sort that the authors did not consider to be thermal in origin. This vast literature shows clearly that excessive exposure is dangerous because of heating, but it also contains a wealth of often contradictory reports of small effects with no clear health significance. There have been too many fishing expeditions in this field.
In reviews of this literature, health agencies have generally applied a systematic approach, using panels of professional scientists and engineers to examine all relevant studies according to defined protocols. These reviews aim to be comprehensive, acknowledging but giving little weight to studies with obvious methodological deficiencies. In addition, the panels look for consistencies in the evidence across studies, and are reluctant to draw conclusions from one-off exploratory studies in the absence of other supporting evidence for specific conclusions. Anti-Wi-Fi campaigners, for their part, seem inclined to cherry-pick the literature and compile lists of studies that support their views, regardless of methodological quality.
High-quality reviews by health agencies run to the hundreds of pages of highly technical discussion. They have consistently failed to find convincing evidence for health hazards of radio frequency exposure that falls below internationally accepted limits. But they also point to gaps in knowledge and call for more research.
In France, for example, the Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health &amp; Safety has extensively reviewed the issue of radio frequency exposure and health. In its most recent review, 16 independent experts worked for three years, holding multiple meetings and public consultations. The final report, issued in 2013, concluded that “no available data makes it possible to propose new exposure limit values for the general population,” but it listed a number of questions needing further study.
In 2016, the same French agency issued an opinion on RF exposures to children age six and under who (the review pointed out) are exposed to such signals from a number of sources, including remote-controlled toys, walkie-talkies, and cell phones. The opinion considered evidence on nine different health-related endpoints, ranging from behavior and cognitive effects to toxicity to various body systems. The committee found that the available data for seven of these endpoints were insufficient to establish effects (either beneficial or adverse) from RF exposure. The committee found “limited evidence” for effects of cell phone use on cognitive function and general well-being, adding that “these effects may however be linked to the use of the mobile telephones rather than to the frequencies they emit.” The opinion mentions Wi-Fi only once, in passing.
<div id="attachment_49689414" style="width: 700px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img class="size-full wp-image-49689414" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext_XIX_3_foster_img03.png" alt="Power lines" width="690" />Power lines, electric utility meters, cell phone towers, and other electrical infrastructure have met the same opposition that has confronted school-based Wi-Fi networks.</div>
Claims of Harm
In contrast to the cautious but generally reassuring findings of health agencies, those who oppose Wi-Fi argue that radio frequency exposures are hazardous to human health, even at exposure levels far below international limits. Their basic argument, which is appealing to many laypersons but not persuasive scientifically, is that the many reported bioeffects of RF energy mean that Wi-Fi fields must have some health effect, even though we cannot discern it clearly.
Undoubtedly the most widely cited document supporting this position is the BioInitiative Report, a nearly 1,500-page review of research on the biological effects of electromagnetic fields over wide ranges of exposure, compiled by a group of self-selected authors. Unlike the health agencies that sponsor the critical reviews, the report’s editors made little attempt to assess the methodological quality of the studies they discussed or evaluate the consistency of findings of different studies with similar endpoints. The report shows strong confirmation bias—paying more attention to studies reporting biological effects than to other, possibly stronger, studies finding no effects.
In a concluding chapter, the editors proposed a “precautionary action level” for radio frequency exposure that is a tiny fraction of existing international limits—less than one millionth of the current limits set by the Federal Communications Commission. The limit recommended by the report, if applied consistently, would effectively rule out any application of RF energy transmitted where people are present—not only Wi-Fi but also cell phones, broadcast television and radio, radar, and even emergency police communications.
The BioInitiative Report has been widely criticized by health agencies and other expert groups for its lack of balance. Nevertheless, it is often cited by those who campaign against the installation of cell phone towers, electric utility meters, power lines, and other electrical infrastructure. Its alarmist perspective is echoed in a number of statements by self-selected groups, such as the 2017 “Reykjavik Appeal,” which arose from a conference on “children, screen time, and wireless radiation” and urged schools to forbid cell phone use and to install hard-wired connections instead of Wi-Fi.
Two health issues dominate current arguments by Wi-Fi opponents. One is that Wi-Fi exposures might lead to cancer. This derives from a 2013 study by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a component of the World Health Organization that conducts highly regarded reviews of suspected human carcinogens. The study concluded that there was “limited evidence” from human or animal studies for carcinogenic effects of RF radiation, and it classified RF electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic” to humans. In the agency’s specialized terminology, this designation indicates that the available evidence was sufficient to raise suspicions, but insufficient for the working group to conclude that a causal relationship “probably” or actually does exist. (The agency’s strongest classification is “carcinogenic to humans,” followed by “probably carcinogenic”; “possibly carcinogenic”; “not classifiable as carcinogenic”; and “probably not carcinogenic.”)
While the agency’s “possibly carcinogenic” classification for radio frequency energy has drawn wide attention, it has been frequently misunderstood by the public. “IARC is an international agency for cancer research, not a public health agency,” noted Peter Wiedemann in a 2014 paper. “Therefore, the categorizations made regarding human carcinogens were not supposed to be interpreted as public health messages, as they have been used recently.” As a group of senior scientists associated with the panel wrote in their 2015 review, European Code Against Cancer, “radiofrequency electromagnetic fields are not an established cause of cancer and are therefore not addressed in the recommendations to reduce cancer risk.”
In short, IARC’s “possible” classification for RF fields does not tell us about the actual health risks, if any, from RF exposures, nor is it a recommendation for public policy. It points to the need for more research, which should focus on stronger sources of RF exposure than Wi-Fi.
The second health issue raised by those opposed to RF exposure is “electromagnetic hypersensitivity,” a syndrome marked by non-specific symptoms such as headache, sleep problems, and anxiety, which many people attribute to low-level radio frequency fields. There is no doubt that many of these individuals have serious health problems; their symptoms are genuine. However, many well-controlled studies have failed to link electromagnetic-field exposure of any kind to these symptoms. In blinded and controlled tests, electromagnetically “sensitive” individuals typically report symptoms when they think they are exposed to electromagnetic-field energy, not necessarily when they demonstrably are exposed. According to the World Health Organization, the condition “has no clear diagnostic criteria and there is no basis to link” electromagnetic hypersensitivity symptoms to electromagnetic-field exposure. The agency said electromagnetic hypersensitivity “is not a medical diagnosis, nor is it clear that it represents a single medical problem.”
<div id="attachment_49689415" style="width: 700px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img class="size-full wp-image-49689415" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext_XIX_3_foster_img04.png" alt="Students with tablet computers" width="690" />Trying to produce a &#8220;radiation free&#8221; environment would be highly disruptive for schools; achieving it would also be impossible, given the ubiquity of wireless technology.</div>
Better Safe Than Sorry?
The Environmental Health Trust, an advocacy group concerned about the health effects of radio frequency fields, has published a list of dozens of actions taken by governments, health authorities, and schools around the world intended “to reduce radiofrequency radiation exposures.”
The list, though, is a mixed bag that includes policies that are not principally aimed at reducing radio frequency exposure. It cites a statement by the Canadian Paediatric Society, for example, that aims to promote physical activity in children. The statement encourages less sedentary time and screen time but says nothing about RF exposure. And policies on the list aimed to limit use of wireless communications in schools have a variety of goals. In 2018, when the French legislature banned the use of cell phones and tablets in schools by children age 15 and under, the aim was indeed to “protect children and adolescents,” according to Jean-Michel Blanquer, minister of education—but not from RF exposure. “We know today that there is a phenomenon of screen addiction, the phenomenon of bad mobile-phone use,” Blanquer told a French news channel. (Since nearly every French student has a cell phone, one wonders how French teachers will manage to enforce the ban.)
France has also banned the marketing of child-friendly cell phones to children under six, and using wireless devices in daycare centers and nurseries for children under three. The country allows Wi-Fi to be used in primary schools, but requires that Wi-Fi networks be deactivated except when they are used for educational activities.
The Environmental Health Trust lists a number of schools around the world, including some in the United States, that have removed Wi-Fi and reverted to hard-wired Ethernet connections for Internet access. (The inventory includes some Waldorf and Montessori schools for young children, which would seem to have little to lose by forgoing Wi-Fi in any event.) The list contains a miscellany of other actions, such as an order by the mayor of a small Italian town to shut off Wi-Fi in the community’s two schools because of health concerns. “Who knows?” the mayor said to the daily newspaper La Stampa. “In 20 years, some people might thank us for it.” But the action was opposed by some parents and other town leaders. “What’s the point?” a former mayor said, observing that there was already Wi-Fi in several other places around town, including the library, where children spent a lot of time.
The town’s order, as well as most of the other actions in the Environmental Health Trust’s list, are precautionary, that is, predicated on the notion of “better safe than sorry” rather than on any identified hazards of wireless communications.
An influential 2000 commentary by the European Commission, the governing body of the European Union, defined how the “precautionary principle” should be used. The commission indicated that the principle should only be invoked after a health hazard is identified, after “as complete as possible” an analysis of the relevant scientific evidence is conducted, and after the probable costs and benefits of precautionary policies is assessed. It noted that a wide range of “precautionary” policies could be adopted, from simply keeping track of scientific developments to outright bans on a technology. There is little sign that officials conducted that kind of analysis before instituting the measures listed by the Environmental Health Trust. They may well have been political accommodations to a concerned public rather than carefully considered health measures.
The precautionary principle has little standing in U.S. and Canadian law. Health agencies in the two countries generally refrain from offering health advice unless substantial scientific evidence supports it. For example, in October 2017, Health Canada advised, in response to a petition from a parents’ group in Peel, Ontario, that:
It is Health Canada’s position, based on the latest scientific evidence, that exposure to low-level RF energy, including that from Wi-Fi technology, is not dangerous to the public if the recommended exposure limits in Safety Code 6 [Canadian RF exposure limits, which are generally similar to U.S. limits] are respected. Accordingly, no additional precautionary measures are required, since RF energy exposure levels from Wi-Fi are typically well below Canadian and international safety limits. Internationally, while a few jurisdictions (cities, provinces or countries) have applied more restrictive limits for RF field exposures from certain wireless devices/apparatus (whether it be Wi-Fi or cell towers), scientific evidence does not support the need for such restrictive limits.
On its website, the Peel District School Board described its consultations with “trusted medical experts” and measurements by a consultant that showed that radio frequency exposures from Wi-Fi in its classrooms were far below Canadian limits. This approach makes sense; school officials are not capable of adjudicating complex scientific issues, nor should they be asked to.
Inevitably, some schools will have to address concerns of staff or parents of children with perceived electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Following recommendations of the World Health Organization, individuals reporting electromagnetic hypersensitivity should be referred to health professionals for assistance without the assumption that their symptoms are directly caused by electromagnetic-field exposure. Schools should be wary of requests to provide “radiation free” environments. Given the many sources of exposure that “hypersensitive” individuals cite as causes of their symptoms—compact LED and fluorescent light bulbs, electric light dimmers, Wi-Fi devices, cell phones, cell towers outside the building—trying to produce a “radiation free” environment could be highly disruptive to schools; achieving it would also be impossible, if “radiation free” means a total lack of RF signals in the environment. And, in the absence of a demonstrated link between exposure to electromagnetic fields and the symptoms that some individuals experience, there is no way to identify an exposure level that is low enough not to “cause” symptoms.
The Internet and wireless communications do present risks that schools need to manage. It would not do, for example, for Johnny to be touching up his Facebook page (or worse) during class or sending inappropriate photos to his classmates. Wireless networks and wireless-connected devices are susceptible to hacking and other cybercrimes with potentially significant impact to schools. Schools need to adopt appropriate policies for safe use of cell phones and the Internet by children—not because of unproven radiation hazards but to avoid the harms that these otherwise highly useful technologies can pose. If health agencies eventually conclude that radio frequency signals from Wi-Fi are hazardous in some way, schools can revise their policies accordingly. In light of half a century of research on the biological effects of radio frequency energy, such a conclusion seems unlikely.
Kenneth R. Foster is professor emeritus of bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania and an engineering consultant to government and industry. In 2012 he participated in a review of the literature related to health effects of Wi-Fi for the Wi-Fi Alliance, an industry group.
<div class='shareaholic-canvas' data-app='share_buttons' data-title='Is Wi-Fi a Health Threat in Schools?' data-link='https://www.educationnext.org/is-wi-fi-health-threat-schools-sorting-fact-fiction/' data-summary='Sorting fact from fiction' data-app-id='28510232' data-app-id-name='category_below_content'></div>";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:36:"http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/";a:1:{s:10:"commentRss";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:87:"https://www.educationnext.org/is-wi-fi-health-threat-schools-sorting-fact-fiction/feed/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:38:"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/";a:1:{s:8:"comments";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:1:"8";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:8;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:81:"

";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:3:{s:0:"";a:6:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:76:"Straight Up Conversation: My Tech High CEO Matt Bowman – by Frederick Hess";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:78:"https://www.educationnext.org/straight-conversation-tech-high-ceo-matt-bowman/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Fri, 05 Apr 2019 04:04:59 +0000";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"category";a:17:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:4:"Blog";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:1;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:9:"Editorial";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:2;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"Technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:3;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:20:"education technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:4;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:14:"Frederick Hess";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:5;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:17:"Frederick M. Hess";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:6;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:11:"Matt Bowman";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:7;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:12:"My Tech High";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:8;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:15:"personalization";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:9;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:21:"Personalized Learning";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:10;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"personalized learning framework";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:11;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:27:"personalized learning model";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:12;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:9:"Rick Hess";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:13;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:21:"Rick Hess Straight Up";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:14;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:24:"technology and schooling";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:15;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:27:"technology in the classroom";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:16;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:22:"technology integration";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49689642";s:7:"attribs";a:1:{s:0:"";a:1:{s:11:"isPermaLink";s:5:"false";}}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:157:"My Tech High partners with innovative public school districts to offer tuition-free, home-centered education programs to 5,000 students, primarily in Utah.
";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:32:"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/";a:1:{s:7:"creator";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:14:"Frederick Hess";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:40:"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10202:"Matt Bowman is the founder and CEO of <a href="https://www.mytechhigh.com/" target="_blank">My Tech High</a>, which partners with innovative public school districts to offer personalized distance education programs focused on technology and entrepreneurship. My Tech High is available tuition-free in Utah and currently serves about 5,000 full-time students annually. Matt began his career as a 6th grade public school teacher and then moved into the tech industry to develop online learning programs for Fortune 500 companies. I recently talked with Matt about My Tech High and its approach to personalized learning. Here&#8217;s what he said.
Rick Hess: What is My Tech High?
<img class="alignright size-full wp-image-49689641" style="float: right;padding-top: 5px;padding-bottom: 5px;padding-left: 5px" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext-april19-blog-hess-bowman.png" alt="Matt Bowman" width="400" />Matt Bowman: For the past 10 years, My Tech High has been providing students in grades K-12 a full-time, tuition-free, high-quality, personalized, distance education experience tailored to the individual needs of each child. It is a home-centered program where students are enrolled in a public school, but they don&#8217;t physically attend it. Students have a wide range of curriculum options across all subjects, plus we have a particular thematic emphasis on tech and entrepreneurship—skills that I think every person needs to be successful in college, career, and life. We currently serve over 5,000 full-time students, primarily in Utah.
Rick: What prompted you to start it? What&#8217;s the big idea behind it?
Matt: While I was a 6th grade teacher in Washington in the mid-90s, I received a state grant to bring this new thing called the internet into the classroom and immediately saw the power of a globally-connected world to impact public education forever. During that time, I also completed a master&#8217;s degree in education focused on public school choice models—like charters, vouchers, magnets, school-within-a-school, and so on. This background, along with my time at Novell in the high-tech industry, helped me design the My Tech High program so that it would be free to every student who wanted to participate and give interested students the skills needed to succeed in the 21st century.
Rick: How is this different from other online programs?
Matt: We offer micro-choice down to the curriculum provider by student by subject. Most online programs only offer their standardized digital curriculum and call it &#8220;personalized&#8221; if a child can go faster or slower through that singular modality. As part of the My Tech High program, we pull from every type of educational modality ever invented—book-based, in-person, outdoors, online self-paced, online live, 1-1 tutoring, group classes, field trips, community education classes, makerspaces, and more! And we offer options at all levels from kindergarten to early college to professional certifications to work-based learning internships and apprenticeships.
Rick: Phrases like &#8220;personalization&#8221; and &#8220;micro-choice&#8221; can pretty quickly morph into meaningless buzzwords. So how exactly do you personalize the learning?
Matt: Agreed. Here&#8217;s how we approach it: First, we truly believe every child is different and thrives when given a voice and choice in their educational decisions. Second, we believe authentic learning can occur in many different ways and modalities. Third, we create collaborative teams, including the student, the parent, teachers, mentors, curriculum providers, local community resources, and businesses, to design a truly personalized education plan for each child.
Rick: I wonder about how you make sure students get the things that they may need—rather than the things they like or that are comfortable for them? Is there a risk that students will choose the wrong courses or progress too slowly?
Matt: We view our primary role as creating a learning environment that gives students the knowledge, skills, and abilities they need to both enjoy life now and to be set up for success in the future. Our focus is on helping students learn how to take charge of their own learning, identify creative solutions to challenges they see, and become critical thinkers about the world around them.
Rick: You mentioned this program is free: How does that work?
Matt: My Tech High is a program administered by public schools, so it is tuition-free for all students who live in Utah. We also have a similar sister program in Idaho and Tennessee.
Rick: Why are these district partners open to this?
Matt: For a wide range of reasons, more and more parents are looking for personalized education options, and smart, innovative districts realize they need to establish key educational partnerships to serve those families well.
Rick: Did you need a state law changed to make this possible?
Matt: No. The statutory framework in Utah, like many states, actually provides more &#8220;permission&#8221; for public schools to innovate than most people think. It just takes an interested superintendent and open-minded local school board members to catch the vision of what&#8217;s possible.
Rick: How hard is it to find a superintendent or board with this kind of vision?
Matt: The role of superintendent in our current public school system is a really tough one. They have to deal with so much more than just educating and inspiring young students. Superintendents are constantly under attack from every direction, so it&#8217;s quite hard to find one who has the time and energy to step outside the norm.
Rick: What do we know about results so far? Have there been any studies or evaluations?
Matt: Yes, all public school students in Utah are required to take the state standardized tests, unless they opt out. And the results have been outstanding! From higher-than-average standardized test scores and ACT scores to the number of early college credits earned and direct-to-career success stories, the program has definitely seen excellent results. For example, our average ACT reported a few years ago was 28 and we&#8217;ve had several students earn a perfect score of 36! Additionally, we launched a truly competency-based associate degree program through College for America at Southern New Hampshire University two years ago and now have our first cohort of students who have completed their degree—fully funded and made available by their district&#8217;s public school! Also, your readers can check our website for six cool <a href="https://www.mytechhigh.com/students/" target="_blank">student stories</a>, including a 15-year-old farm girl who launched an online business and made $30,000 in her first 6 months. We also highlight a family who traveled to Nepal for several months to do humanitarian service and continued working on their educational plan without disruption. We share the story of a 13-year-old Hollywood actor who did &#8220;schooling on the set&#8221; and a gifted 10-year-old who started taking classes at the local university. Other stories include a young man whose parents emigrated from Mexico and is passionate about his makerspace skills and a young ballroom-dancing boy with dyslexia who has benefited greatly from the freedom and flexibility our program offers him.
Rick: What about the content itself: Did you custom build the courses, or do other companies contribute?
Matt: We custom build our own self-paced, online tech and entrepreneurship courses, such as Computer Programming, Robotics, Animation, Game Design, Web Design, 3D Printing, Drone Videography, Creativity Development, Intro to Entrepreneurship, Google Ninja, and more. We then partner with leading organizations for the other subject area content.
Rick: What&#8217;s the biggest challenge you guys have encountered along the way, and how have you overcome it?
Matt: The biggest challenge has been the need to continuously educate those who want to protect the traditional public school system that there are other ways to accomplish our shared goal of helping students succeed.
Rick: Finally, you&#8217;ve been running My Tech High for 10 years now. What&#8217;s the fairest criticism that might be made of your work to date, and what are you doing to address it?
Matt: Due to our micro-choice approach, it can be very overwhelming to first-year parents and can create a lot of stress for them. As a result, we have recently made some additional investments in streamlining our system and hiring personnel to provide targeted support to brand-new parents just joining our program.
This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.
Frederick Hess is director of education policy studies at AEI and an executive editor at Education Next.
This post originally appeared on <a href="http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/rick_hess_straight_up/2019/04/straight_up_conversation_my_tech_high_ceo_matt_bowman.html" target="_blank">Rick Hess Straight Up</a>.
<div class='shareaholic-canvas' data-app='share_buttons' data-title='Straight Up Conversation: My Tech High CEO Matt Bowman' data-link='https://www.educationnext.org/straight-conversation-tech-high-ceo-matt-bowman/' data-summary='My Tech High partners with innovative public school districts to offer tuition-free, home-centered education programs to 5,000 students, primarily in Utah.' data-app-id='28510232' data-app-id-name='category_below_content'></div>";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:9;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:87:"

";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:3:{s:0:"";a:6:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:92:"Straight Up Conversation: AltSchool Chief Impact Officer Devin Vodicka – by Frederick Hess";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:97:"https://www.educationnext.org/straight-conversation-altschool-chief-impact-officer-devin-vodicka/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Fri, 01 Feb 2019 05:02:43 +0000";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"category";a:19:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:4:"Blog";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:1;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:9:"Editorial";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:2;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"Technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:3;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:9:"AltSchool";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:4;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:13:"Devin Vodicka";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:5;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:20:"education technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:6;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:22:"educational technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:7;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:14:"Frederick Hess";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:8;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:17:"Frederick M. Hess";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:9;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:15:"personalization";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:10;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:21:"Personalized Learning";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:11;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"personalized learning framework";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:12;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:27:"personalized learning model";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:13;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:30:"personalized learning platform";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:14;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:9:"Rick Hess";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:15;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:21:"Rick Hess Straight Up";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:16;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:13:"School Choice";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:17;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:27:"technology in the classroom";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:18;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:22:"technology integration";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49688731";s:7:"attribs";a:1:{s:0:"";a:1:{s:11:"isPermaLink";s:5:"false";}}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:189:"AltSchool partners with 25 districts and schools to implement technology-enabled personalized learning. It also operates four tuition-funded lab schools in San Francisco and New York City. ";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:32:"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/";a:1:{s:7:"creator";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:14:"Frederick Hess";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:40:"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:14202:"Devin Vodicka is the chief impact officer for <a href="https://www.altschool.com/" target="_blank">AltSchool</a>, which partners with 25 districts and schools to implement technology-enabled personalized learning. AltSchool also operates four tuition-funded lab schools in San Francisco and New York City. Devin joined AltSchool in 2017 after being named a three-time California superintendent of the year. Recently I talked with Devin about AltSchool and its unique approach to personalized learning. Here&#8217;s what he had to say.
RH: So Devin, what exactly is AltSchool?
<img class="alignright size-full wp-image-49688730" style="float: right;padding-top: 5px;padding-bottom: 5px;padding-left: 5px" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext-feb19-blog-hess-vodicka.png" alt="" width="400" />DV: AltSchool is an education startup where educators, researchers, and technologists all work together to design an operating system, a technology platform, for education. The platform serves as the foundation to help schools offer a learner-centric education. AltSchool&#8217;s platform is a suite of technology and services designed to be flexible enough to help any type of school offer students a learner-centric education using any curriculum, and inspire students to drive their own learning journey. The platform supports a research-backed learning cycle intended to create optimal learning conditions for children. Teachers are able to build and customize the curriculum, personalize learning activities, provide timely feedback, and assess students&#8217; academic and social-emotional progress in real time.
RH: What&#8217;s the big idea behind AltSchool?
DV: AltSchool was created five years ago at a pivotal moment for education leaders, like myself. School leaders are trying to reconcile and improve upon some pretty massive gaps in our education system—graduation rates hovering around 80 percent for decades, 56 percent student disengagement by high school, students&#8217; global rank dropping, and so on. In many other industries like health care or transportation, technology has produced powerful innovation resulting in new approaches and new standards of quality. But the same hasn&#8217;t happened in education. At the same time, AltSchool&#8217;s founder, Max Ventilla, fundamentally believed a solution could be found if we created a place for experts in education and experts in tech to come together. So Max initially created AltSchool as an R&amp;D space, like a think tank, where teachers and technologists could explore many possibilities at once. We knew the final product would be some type of technology solution to help schools offer a more personalized, whole child education, but we spent this period determining exactly what that solution would be.
RH: As you know, phrases like &#8220;personalization&#8221; and &#8220;technology-enabled&#8221; learning can pretty quickly morph into meaningless buzzwords. Given that, can you talk more precisely about what AltSchool&#8217;s doing that is compelling?
DV: For AltSchool personalization does not mean screen learning. AltSchool defines personalization as meeting students where they are in both academics and social-emotional learning. You asked what&#8217;s compelling, and I&#8217;d say what we&#8217;re hearing from our first partners is two things: power and flexibility. The AltSchool suite of tools are meaningfully impacting teachers&#8217; everyday workflow and really inspiring students to take far greater ownership in their own learning. At the same time the tools are flexible enough that any type of school can use them, a small Montessori or a large urban public district. The fact that AltSchool&#8217;s approach focuses on people that are supported by co-developed technology is what generates the power.
RH: Obviously, plenty of heralded tech-infused educational efforts have disappointed over time. Why do you think that is, and how do you see AltSchool avoiding that fate?
DV: There have been many well-intentioned efforts that have failed, primarily due to the complexity of the school environment. That plays out in a couple of different ways. First, you often have technology developed off to the side, without the input and insight of education experts. Second, technology is often &#8220;thrown over the wall&#8221; without a clear implementation and support plan to improve adoption and impact. Last, needs change constantly, and it can be hard for a piece of technology or software to adapt to the changing demands. That&#8217;s what appealed to me about AltSchool. The proximity in our lab schools and partner schools enables us to co-develop the tools alongside researchers, designers, and engineers. That means we provide a very high level of hands-on support, which goes way beyond the traditional professional development or product training. Our team of designers and educators are often on-site with partner school teachers, working with them to do everything from creating an implementation strategy to customizing the tools based on their curriculum.
RH: Let&#8217;s talk about the four &#8220;lab&#8221; schools you run. What are those, and how do they work?
DV: Today we operate four schools, two in the San Francisco Bay Area and two in New York City. They are lab environments where our researchers and product team pilot new approaches and features in collaboration with the school communities. They allow us to explore what&#8217;s possible; ideas and feedback have created the platform that schools around the country are now using. But I would also note that the lab schools have become centers of excellence in their own right.
RH: In October 2017, The Wall Street Journal <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-startup-opens-alternative-lab-school-in-manhattan-1507689478" target="_blank">reported</a> that one of your Manhattan schools has only 24 students. What are the advantages and disadvantages of running a school so small?
DV: Running small schools gives us the ability to be nimble and try new things quickly. Union Square is our newest location, and we hope to add to it. The optimal size for lab school environments seems to be around 50-100 students. This is something else we learned early on—the equilibrium between small and too-small. Initially we were opening schools quickly due to high parent demand, some as small as 20-25 students, like our Dogpatch and East Village campuses. Having a slightly larger facility and community opens up more opportunities for students academically and socially. This is precisely why we worked to open larger campuses throughout 2016-2017, and consolidated these tiny campuses into them.
RH: Now, I believe that there was a big shift in the model a couple years ago—can you talk about that shift, what prompted it, and what&#8217;s different now?
DV: Yes, 2016-2017 was a difficult, transitional time for us as we stopped expanding our own lab schools and accelerated support for existing schools. Over about six months, starting in March 2016, we met with a couple hundred school leaders. It quickly became clear that schools in every part of the country were transitioning to a learner-centric model. Every school we spoke to was interested in very specific pieces of the technology we&#8217;d built, what has now become the AltSchool platform. What was more surprising was that schools wanted access immediately; they didn&#8217;t want to wait a few years for studies—in fact they wanted to help us build the technology. So based on their feedback all other product lines were shut down, and AltSchool began ramping up the team with education leaders to prepare to support needs of diverse schools. As of this fall we&#8217;re now supporting thousands of students in 25 public, charter, and private schools nationwide.
RH: What kind of results have you seen so far, both at the lab schools and more generally?
DV: Results just keep getting better and better. We do pretty comprehensive polling a few times a year, and this fall, we&#8217;re seeing the highest parent satisfaction to-date: 92 percent. Our teacher retention was high last year, at 86 percent, even though we had <a href="https://www.altschool.com/post/ed-tech-lessons-learned-so-far" target="_blank">a very challenging year</a> for our lab school communities. AltSchool students are progressing at rates well above the national average. We do MAP testing, and scores grew 134 percent since last fall. We&#8217;ve started promoting our first classes into high schools, and all students are getting into top choice schools. We&#8217;re seeing just as exciting results with partner schools. Our pilot year last year was more successful than expected, with 100 percent retention of all partners and major expansions with our first two public districts. We started with small cohorts of teachers within the district, and due to high teacher satisfaction and word of mouth, both districts expanded the number of teachers using the platform by a factor of ten in the first few months. This year we&#8217;re supporting 25-plus partners and schools, including six public districts, representing thousands of students. That&#8217;s a pretty dramatic increase from the start of last year when we were only supporting a couple hundred.
RH: Over the past five years, AltSchool has <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-startup-opens-alternative-lab-school-in-manhattan-1507689478" target="_blank">raised</a> over $170 million from donors including Mark Zuckerberg. How are those funds being spent?
DV: As I mentioned, we&#8217;re wrapping up our R&amp;D period and now getting ready to scale the technology. But in the early days, we thought of ourselves as the R&amp;D arm for education—and R&amp;D is very expensive. You have to hire many highly experienced engineers, researchers, and designers and carve out the space and time for them to explore a variety of possibilities at once. That&#8217;s why AltSchool was founded as a B-Corp and Private Benefit Corporation, instead of a non-profit. We are able to use VC funds for the R&amp;D portion of the organization, and also have tuition coming in for our lab schools to one day enable them to be self-sustaining.
RH: On that note, how do you make this model financially sustainable in the long term?
DV: Our model has always been to charge some type of fee for use of the technology, and to enable the schools to ultimately become self-sustaining entities. We&#8217;ve talked about AltSchool&#8217;s journey being in three phases. Phase 1 is that R&amp;D period. Phase 2 is piloting the technology that originated from that early period with key partners, meaning both our lab school environments and public and private schools, to learn. By Phase 3 we will have built something that has been vetted by a variety of school environments and demonstrates viability to improve the student experience, so that we can start to offer the platform to schools of all types.
RH: Before coming to AltSchool, you had a successful career as a traditional superintendent in California, during which you were thrice named state superintendent of the year. What prompted you to move to AltSchool?
DV: I was fortunate to have been surrounded by dedicated, talented people and to have had the opportunity to be part of a team that implemented a new learning approach to Vista Unified School District. These experiences provided insights into how impactful such a transformation can be. So when I learned about AltSchool, I realized this could be a chance to bring the same type of change to many more students.
RH: Where do you expect AltSchool to be five years from now?
DV: AltSchool has always described our work as a 10 year journey. Today we&#8217;re at our halfway point. Five years from now, we hope to be in hundreds of schools supporting hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of kids. But that will only happen if there is continued momentum in this shift to learner-centric models of education, and that is no small task. There are signs that we are beginning to see convergence around the key elements of a post-industrial educational system that include more learner agency, competency-based experiences, a strong emphasis on social-emotional learning, and an increasing understanding that we will have to do this work together. It is a privilege to be a part of the movement that is leaning into opportunities to better serve all learners, to better prepare them to thrive and contribute in a context of accelerating change, and to improve communities and society as a result of our combined efforts.
This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.
— Frederick Hess
Frederick Hess is director of education policy studies at AEI and an executive editor at Education Next.
This post originally appeared on <a href="http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/rick_hess_straight_up/2019/01/straight_up_conversation_altschool_chief_impact_officer_devin_vodicka.html" target="_blank">Rick Hess Straight Up</a>.
<div class='shareaholic-canvas' data-app='share_buttons' data-title='Straight Up Conversation: AltSchool Chief Impact Officer Devin Vodicka' data-link='https://www.educationnext.org/straight-conversation-altschool-chief-impact-officer-devin-vodicka/' data-summary='AltSchool partners with 25 districts and schools to implement technology-enabled personalized learning. It also operates four tuition-funded lab schools in San Francisco and New York City.' data-app-id='28510232' data-app-id-name='category_below_content'></div>";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:10;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:69:"

";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:3:{s:0:"";a:6:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:111:"K-12 Schools Aren’t Getting Disrupted, but Markets that Provide Resources to Schools Are – by Thomas Arnett";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:84:"https://www.educationnext.org/no-k-12-schools-arent-getting-disrupted-heres-what-is/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Thu, 31 Jan 2019 09:45:57 +0000";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"category";a:13:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:4:"Blog";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:1;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:9:"Editorial";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:2;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"Technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:3;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"digital learning";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:4;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"disruption";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:5;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:17:"disruption theory";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:6;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:21:"disruptive innovation";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:7;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:20:"education technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:8;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:22:"educational technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:9;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:15:"online learning";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:10;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:27:"technology in the classroom";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:11;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:22:"technology integration";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:12;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:13:"Thomas Arnett";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49688722";s:7:"attribs";a:1:{s:0:"";a:1:{s:11:"isPermaLink";s:5:"false";}}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:165:"Edtech entrepreneurs and school choice advocates sometimes invoke disruptive innovation as an indomitable force that will redeem and transform broken school systems.";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:32:"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/";a:1:{s:7:"creator";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:13:"Thomas Arnett";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:40:"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:6771:"<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-49688721" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext-jan19-arnett-lockers-disruption.jpg" alt="" width="690" />
If you’ve followed the K–12 education dialogue over the last decade, then you’re probably familiar with the term “disruptive innovation.” Edtech entrepreneurs and school choice advocates sometimes invoke it as an indomitable force that will redeem and transform broken school systems.
Meanwhile, people on the other side of these debates worry that “disruption” is a flawed yet rhetorically powerful narrative used to rationalize K–12 privatization. Somewhere in the middle are skeptics who give consideration to the idea, but wonder if “disruption” is an oversold term that is likely to underdeliver on its proponents’ promises.
So how do we make sense of the tumult of opinions? What is disruptive innovation as it relates to K–12 education?
K-12 schools are not getting disrupted — here’s why
Talk of disruption in K–12 education took off when Clayton Christensen’s 2008 book, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Disrupting-Class-Expanded-Disruptive-Innovation-ebook/dp/B00422LBY6/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;qid=1497895268&amp;sr=8-1" target="_blank">Disrupting Class</a>, used <a href="https://www.christenseninstitute.org/disruptive-innovations/" target="_blank">Disruptive Innovation theory</a> to conclude that online learning is poised to transform K–12 schooling. Since the book’s publication, virtual charter schools have continued to expand, and a number of innovative brick-and-mortar charter schools that make heavy use of online learning have made notable headlines.
So, are these schools fulfilling the book’s prophecy? For the skeptics and the deeply concerned, I want to offer some words of solace: K–12 public schools are not getting disrupted. And for the record, Disrupting Class never claimed that they would be.
First, charter schools are not disruptive innovations relative to traditional schools. Disruptive innovations always start out serving people who lack access to mainstream options. But in the United States today, all students have access to some form of public education. This means that charter schools cannot be disruptive because they compete head-to-head with district schools for enrollment.
Second, full-time virtual schools and other purely online options are not disrupting traditional public schools either. Disruptive innovations need a technology that can improve over time until customers see it as comparable to traditional options. But when it comes to schooling, technology cannot substitute for everything parents value in a traditional school. In addition to academic learning, most families value the caretaking role that schools offer for working parents. This important benefit of brick-and-mortar schools has no technological substitute, which means only a small segment of the population will ever be interested in full-time virtual schooling.
Charter schools and virtual schools certainly compete with district schools, but their differences relative to district schools do not make them disruptive.
Then where does disruptive innovation happen in K–12 education?
As Disrupting Class points out, online learning enables disruptive innovation in K–12 education. But online learning is not disrupting the K–12 education system. Rather, it fuels disruption within the markets that provide resources to K–12 schools. Over the last few decades, a host of new online learning providers—offering everything from adaptive learning software, to mastery-based learning management systems, to fully-online courses—entered the scene and began selling their services to districts. In doing so, these players leveled a disruptive threat to the hegemony of textbook vendors.
The road to transforming education is paved through change management
Disruptive entrants in the K–12 marketplace offer schools fresh opportunities to better support their students. But using technology to make learning more student-centered will be neither automatic or intuitive. In an EdSurge <a href="https://www.edsurge.com/news/2017-04-12-is-your-edtech-product-a-refrigerator-or-washing-machine" target="_blank">article</a>, my colleague Julia Freeland Fisher explains that many of the most innovative online-learning technologies have slow adoption curves because they are not plug-compatible with traditional schools. Similarly, some of my recent research points out that schools trying to personalize learning might want to <a href="https://www.christenseninstitute.org/publications/staffing/" target="_blank">rethink traditional school staffing models</a>; but redefining educator roles and responsibilities is no easy task. Even with all the new opportunities that online learning has to offer, transforming schools still comes down to the hard work of change management.
Disruptive innovation is happening in K–12 education. But it isn’t going to replace traditional schools. Rather, it will change the menu of instructional resources that schools can use to serve their students. To take advantage of these resources, school leaders first need to carefully consider how new tools impact <a href="https://www.christenseninstitute.org/blog/a-new-framework-to-unlock-edtechs-potential-for-teachers/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">educators capacity</a>. Then they need to implement new tools, programs, and approaches in ways that actually <a href="https://www.christenseninstitute.org/blog/the-secret-to-activating-teacher-motivation/" target="_blank">motivate teachers</a> to change how they teach.
— Thomas Arnett
Thomas Arnett is a Research Fellow of Education at the Clayton Christensen Institute.
This post originally appeared on <a href="https://www.christenseninstitute.org/blog/no-k-12-schools-arent-getting-disrupted-but-heres-what-is/" target="_blank">ChristensenInstitute.org</a>.
<div class='shareaholic-canvas' data-app='share_buttons' data-title='K-12 Schools Aren’t Getting Disrupted, but Markets that Provide Resources to Schools Are' data-link='https://www.educationnext.org/no-k-12-schools-arent-getting-disrupted-heres-what-is/' data-summary='Edtech entrepreneurs and school choice advocates sometimes invoke disruptive innovation as an indomitable force that will redeem and transform broken school systems.' data-app-id='28510232' data-app-id-name='category_below_content'></div>";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:11;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:84:"

";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:3:{s:0:"";a:6:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:104:"Defining Personalized Learning and Blended Learning: Is There a Difference? – by Julia Freeland Fisher";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:89:"https://www.educationnext.org/defining-personalized-learning-blended-learning-difference/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Thu, 17 Jan 2019 05:05:04 +0000";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"category";a:18:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:4:"Blog";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:1;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:9:"Editorial";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:2;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"Technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:3;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"blended learning";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:4;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:15:"blended schools";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:5;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:21:"Christensen Institute";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:6;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:29:"Clayton Christensen Institute";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:7;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"digital learning";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:8;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:20:"education technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:9;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:22:"educational technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:10;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:21:"Julia Freeland Fisher";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:11;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:15:"personalization";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:12;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:21:"Personalized Learning";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:13;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"personalized learning framework";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:14;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:27:"personalized learning model";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:15;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:30:"personalized learning platform";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:16;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:24:"technology and schooling";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:17;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:27:"technology in the classroom";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49688460";s:7:"attribs";a:1:{s:0:"";a:1:{s:11:"isPermaLink";s:5:"false";}}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:174:"Personalized learning is a pedagogical philosophy of tailoring learning to the individual student. Blended learning involves integrating technology to deliver some content. ";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:32:"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/";a:1:{s:7:"creator";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:21:"Julia Freeland Fisher";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:40:"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:7423:"<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-49688459" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext-jan19-blog-fisher-personalized-puzzle.jpg" alt="" width="690" />
Recently, more than a few education headlines have focused on the concerns surrounding the <a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/11/16/657895964/the-future-of-learning-well-it-s-personal" target="_blank">shaky meaning </a>of personalized learning, oftentimes highlighting the anxieties<a href="https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2018/11/07/why-does-personalized-learning-sometimes-feel-impersonal.html" target="_blank"> posed by critics</a> that personalized means the use of technology at the expense of student’s social-emotional development or that personalization is the agenda of Silicon Valley titans.
To understand the nuances of personalized learning—and why it’s not solely tech-centered, though technology may be a critical lever for scale—it’s important to define what personalized learning is…and if it’s different from blended learning, it’s often interchangeably applied concept.
Here’s how we at the Christensen Institute try to make a clear distinction between these related, but distinct, terms:
Personalized learning: In the current education conversation, personalized learning is a pedagogical philosophy, tending to refer to a host of efforts and models that tailor learning and development to the individual student, based on beliefs about what outcomes we want students to reach and how to best help them get there. Herein, I think, lies a large part of the confusion: the field alternately refers to personalized learning as a collection of modalities and a collection of desired outcomes.
<a href="https://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2017/03/22/a-continuum-on-personalized-learning-first-draft/" target="_blank">Larry Cuban’s look </a>at an array of personalized approaches demonstrates this tendency. Based on his observations of schools in California, Cuban argues that personalized learning exists along a spectrum of corresponding goals and approaches. On one end of the spectrum, personalizing refers to integrating far greater degrees of differentiation to scaffold instruction along a pre-existing set of learning experiences and targets specific behavioral outcomes.
On the other, personalizing refers to moving away from those fixed learning targets or pathways and freeing students to construct learning as they go, in an effort to “reach beyond intellectual and academic outcomes” to cultivate student agency. Many schools, he points out, fall somewhere in the middle of this spectrum.
Cuban’s spectrum illustrates that, to date, schools pursuing personalized learning span a range of philosophies and corresponding modalities. (See a snapshot of the Department of Education’s <a href="https://www.ed.gov/oii-news/competency-based-learning-or-personalized-learning" target="_blank">examples here</a>.)
Blended learning: A modality of instruction. As we at the Christensen Institute define it, blended learning is a formal education program in which a student learns:
<blockquote>• at least in part through online learning, with some element of student control over time, place, path, and/or pace;
• at least in part in a supervised brick-and-mortar location away from home;
• and the modalities along each student’s learning path within a course or subject are connected to provide an integrated learning experience.</blockquote>
Blended learning, in other words, is a modality in much the same way a textbook, lecture, or project constitutes a modality. It does not refer to a particular philosophy or pedagogy. Blended learning has both online and offline components. These components of a blended model can be as diverse as the number of students in a given class or as uniform as an utterly traditional classroom.
Put differently, all sorts of learning experiences—from highly behaviorist drill-and-kill exercises to highly constructivist projects or inquiry-based exercises—can be incorporated into online or offline experiences within a blended model. What classifies a school or classroom as blended is not what is being taught, or even the pedagogical decisions of how teaching and learning occurs, but how students access content. If at least some content is delivered online, then an environment is blended.
That said, the current state of blended learning as a modality reflects the current state of education technology as a tool powering that modality. As a result, blended learning in practice can appear to be anchored in particular philosophical or pedagogical characteristics. For example, a large number of blended environments use off-the-shelf online content that offers adaptive exercises to allow students to learn and practice pre-determined content and basic skills. This has led some in the field to bemoan blended learning as at odds with some personalized approaches that aim to allow students to construct their learning from the ground up. But this take on blended learning is short-sighted: it conflates the particular edtech tools gaining traction in schools with blended learning as a modality that stands to evolve as edtech tools themselves do.
In summation: The difference between blended and personalized learning
Academic debates aside, here’s how I’d summarize it:
Blended learning is an instructional modality that describes integrating technology to deliver some content. Full stop. It’s not more or less than that, and it doesn’t connote a specific set of goals or philosophies.
Personalized learning, on the other hand, is broader and, at least today, connotes philosophical and pedagogical points of view. It’s not just about the mere presence of technology in an instructional model. Rather, personalized learning describes a combination of modalities and goals in a field that is reaching toward better and (and in some cases, new) outcomes for students. Blended learning is often one of those modalities because leveraging some online learning tends to make personalizing learning at scale far more feasible for a single teacher supporting many students spanning different levels of mastery. Depending on the personalized learning outcomes and philosophies a given system subscribes to, blended-learning models and content may look radically different.
— Julia Freeland Fisher:
Julia Freeland Fisher is the director of education research at the Clayton Christensen Institute.
This post originally appeared at <a href="https://www.christenseninstitute.org/blog/defining-personalized-learning-and-blended-learning-is-there-a-difference/" target="_blank">ChristensenInstitute.org</a>.
<div class='shareaholic-canvas' data-app='share_buttons' data-title='Defining Personalized Learning and Blended Learning: Is There a Difference?' data-link='https://www.educationnext.org/defining-personalized-learning-blended-learning-difference/' data-summary='Personalized learning is a pedagogical philosophy of tailoring learning to the individual student. Blended learning involves integrating technology to deliver some content.' data-app-id='28510232' data-app-id-name='category_below_content'></div>";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:12;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:99:"

";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:3:{s:0:"";a:6:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:42:"Entree to Freshman Year – by Kelly Field";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:108:"https://www.educationnext.org/entree-to-freshman-year-online-programs-offer-low-cost-courses-college-credit/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Tue, 15 Jan 2019 05:01:39 +0000";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"category";a:23:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:8:"Features";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:1;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"Higher Education";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:2;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:8:"Homepage";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:3;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:7:"Journal";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:4;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:18:"On Top of the News";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:5;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"Technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:6;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:18:"Advanced Placement";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:7;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:8:"AP tests";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:8;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:24:"Arizona State University";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:9;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:11:"Burck Smith";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:10;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:9:"CLEP exam";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:11;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:14:"college access";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:12;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:24:"college and career ready";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:13;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:18:"college attainment";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:14;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:13:"College Board";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:15;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:33:"College Level Examination Program";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:16;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:22:"freshman year for free";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:17;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:9:"higher ed";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:18;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"higher education";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:19;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:11:"Kelly Field";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:20;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:12:"Michael Crow";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:21;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:32:"Modern States Education Alliance";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:22;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:14:"StraighterLine";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49688150";s:7:"attribs";a:1:{s:0:"";a:1:{s:11:"isPermaLink";s:5:"false";}}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:59:"Online programs offer low-cost courses for college credit
";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:32:"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/";a:1:{s:7:"creator";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:11:"Kelly Field";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:40:"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:26068:"<img class="alignright size-full wp-image-49688145" style="float: right;padding-top: 5px;padding-bottom: 5px;padding-left: 5px" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext_XIX_2_field_img01.jpg" alt="" width="400" />When Arizona State University announced in 2015 that it would offer a freshman year’s worth of credit-bearing “massive open online courses” (MOOCs) for a fraction of the cost of its regular online and in-person classes, the news was met with both excitement and alarm.
Education reformers proclaimed the move groundbreaking, saying it would open up higher education to underserved populations at home and around the world. The program’s name reflected that ambition: Global Freshman Academy.
“This is truly revolutionary,” Anant Agarwal, CEO of the nonprofit MOOC provider edX, Arizona State’s partner in the deal, told the Washington Post at the time.
But some academics saw the new model as a threat to traditional colleges, warning that it would steal students from community colleges and regional public institutions and destroy the livelihood of faculty members.
“Education technology has just become weaponized,” wrote Jonathan Rees, a history professor at Colorado State University Pueblo, in a blog post. “Arizona State is now the first predator university.”
Three years on, both the hype and the hysteria seem overblown. Though the program has drawn large numbers of students, it’s been plagued by the same problems that have dogged MOOCs since their creation: low completion rates and a high percentage of learners who already have degrees. Of the 373,000 students who have enrolled, barely 2 percent of students (8,090) have completed a course with a grade of C or better, and under 22 percent of the completers (roughly 1,750 students) have received credit from Arizona State (ASU) for their work. Fewer than 150 have enrolled in the university as regular students.
These low completion rates do not surprise Paul J. LeBlanc, president of Southern New Hampshire University, which serves about 3,000 students on campus and more than 60,000 through its online division.
“Anytime you talk about free, you get large numbers at the top of the funnel, and small numbers at the bottom,” he said. Curious students sign up, and when their interest wanes, they drop out. “There’s no skin in the game.”
But Global Freshman Academy, which gives students the option of paying for academic credit after they successfully complete a course, was supposed to be different from most MOOC providers. The promise of low-cost credit—just $600 a course—was meant to be the carrot that would attract a less-educated student and drive up persistence rates. That hasn’t happened, at least not on the scale reformers predicted.
Though close to half (44 percent) of students who have sought credit have only a high school diploma, nearly a third of them have at least an associate’s degree, and almost a quarter have a bachelor’s degree or higher. While more than 60 percent of learners live abroad, U.S. residents constitute the vast majority of the students who have sought credit.
Philip Regier, dean for educational initiatives at ASU, blames the disappointing numbers on a lack of awareness of the program. “We don’t have hundreds of thousands of marketing dollars to spend on it,” he said. “Many, many people do not yet understand that it’s available to them.”
Although Global Freshman Academy and other programs that seek to unbundle freshman year, such as StraighterLine and Freshman Year for Free, have yet to become household names, the need for cheaper, more flexible pathways to a college credential is clear. A growing number of jobs today require postsecondary education: in 2017, 68 percent of individuals holding only a high-school diploma were employed, in contrast to 84 percent of those with at least a bachelor’s degree (see Figure 1). Yet more than half of Americans over the age of 25 lack even an associate’s degree, and in many underdeveloped countries, attainment rates are even lower. Often, adult learners don’t have the time or resources to enroll in a mainstream four-year college, or even a marginally cheaper online program.
<a href="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext_XIX_2_field_fig01.jpg" target="_blank"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-49688142" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext_XIX_2_field_fig01-small.jpg" alt="" width="690" /></a>
Meanwhile, the cost of college continues to climb, and with it, student debt. Nationally, two out of every three seniors who graduated from public and nonprofit colleges in 2017 carried student debt averaging $28,650, according to the Institute for College Access and Success. These rising costs and debt burdens are making it harder for low-income and debt-averse young people to afford a degree, contributing to a growing skills gap.
To continue to serve as an engine of opportunity, the American higher-education industry will need to create more low-cost pathways that appeal to adult learners and low-income, first-generation students alike. But Global Freshman Academy and other innovative Web-based programs face obstacles to growth beyond the lack of public awareness.
Take cost. Unlike traditional colleges, these programs aren’t accredited, and therefore aren’t eligible to award federal student aid. That means that low-income students must pay out-of-pocket. While the programs cost far less than a four-year public institution, even a couple hundred dollars can put college out of reach for a poor student.
Programs such as Global Freshman Academy also provide fewer student supports than traditional campuses—supports that, studies show, bolster the likelihood of success for low-income and first-generation students. Adding more counselors and advisors would likely improve completion rates, but it would also force the programs to raise their tuition, pricing out more students.
To be truly transformative—and sustainable—Global Freshman Academy and its peers will have to tackle these daunting challenges.
Still, some signs indicate that such programs are already having an impact on the higher-ed landscape. By proving the feasibility of offering high-quality, low-cost, entry-level courses for credit, ASU is putting pressure on other institutions to follow suit.
And by treating the open courses the same as in-person ones on its transcripts, the university is enhancing the credibility of MOOC-based programs (or devaluing the traditional academic credit, depending on whom you ask).
Origins
Global Freshman Academy wasn’t the first to try to radically reduce the cost and risk of attending college online.
For nearly a decade, the for-profit company StraighterLine has offered a $99-a-month all-you-can-learn subscription and guaranteed credit at 130 partner colleges. The company also charges a fee of $59 per course, but all told, a student enrolled for nine months can get a year’s worth of credits for under $1,500, less than a third of what eight courses at Global Freshman Academy would cost.
Last year, StraighterLine enrolled more than 25,000 students in general-ed courses. More than 60 percent of its students complete a course, and most of them—90 percent—say they plan to transfer their credit to a college.
Like Global Freshman Academy, StraighterLine generated a lot of buzz when it launched in 2009, three years before the MOOC craze began. Fast Company named it one of the “10 most innovative companies in education,” and reformers hailed the company’s founder, Burck Smith, as a revolutionary.
But StraighterLine, like Global Freshman Academy, met with skepticism from academe. Early on, a handful of mainstream colleges that had agreed to award credit for StraighterLine courses backed out, leaving mostly for-profits and adult-serving institutions as partners. The dropouts said the agreement wasn’t boosting their enrollment and was cutting into revenue from their own online offerings.
Looking back, Smith attributes the initial attrition to a bias against for-profit education, and a “knee-jerk reaction” that an online, low-cost education “must be low quality.”
Back in 2009, it was “politically fraught” for colleges to fraternize with for-profit companies, Smith said. These days, the association doesn’t carry the same stigma.
“The national conversation has changed,” he said.
Today, the partner colleges provide a major pipeline, sending students to StraighterLine to knock out some prerequisites or prove themselves ready to enroll (or re-enroll) in college, Smith said. They’ll also refer students who are at risk of dropping out because they’ve exhausted their eligibility for federal aid or face scheduling challenges.
Smith has had less luck selling students on a full freshman year’s worth of courses. The company dropped its discounted “first-year bundle” a couple of years ago, after hardly anyone purchased the package. On average, students complete four courses, less than half of what the bundle covered.
Smith argues that even if there isn’t demand for a freshman-year package, there’s still a benefit to unbundling general education. In September, a running tally on the company’s website estimated that the courses have saved students and taxpayers close to $160 million in tuition and fees over the costs of comparable courses at a four-year public institution.
Smith won’t disclose how much money the company is making, but said he’s “fairly happy” with progress to date. The biggest constraint to future growth, as he sees it, is the company’s lack of access to federal financial aid.
“We are cheap, but we can’t compete with free,” he said.
The U.S. Department of Education (ED) is currently testing the idea of opening up federal coffers to online education programs such as Smith’s, but the experiment has gotten a slow start. Three years in, ED has approved only one partnership—between StraighterLine and Dallas County Community College District—and it is more traditional than StraighterLine’s regular offering. Classes are tied to the academic calendar, and students pay a flat fee of $174 per credit, rather than $99 per month. There’s no free trial.
Smith worries those differences could make the hybrid program less appealing—and ultimately less disruptive—than StraighterLine’s subscription model.
Still, he sees the pilot as a way to start chipping away at the federal ban on aid to so-called “non-institutional providers” and to “create some space for innovation” within the confines of current law.
<a href="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext_XIX_2_field_tab01.jpg" target="_blank"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-49688142" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext_XIX_2_field_tab01-small.jpg" alt="" width="690" /></a>
Freshman Year for Free
But getting Congress to embrace new ways of educating people isn’t easy, as Steven B. Klinsky, the founder and CEO of the nonprofit Modern States, knows all too well. (Note: Klinsky chairs the advisory committee to the Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University, within which Education Next is housed.)
In 2012, at the height of the MOOC craze, Klinsky, a venture capitalist and philanthropist, decided the nation needed a new, innovation-focused accreditor that would recognize specific courses for credit. So he joined forces with a former ED official, David A. Bergeron, then at the Center for American Progress, and set about creating one.
The pair wrote articles promoting the plan, and walked the halls of the department and Congress, trying to get the government to recognize their new accreditor. They failed.
“Rather than keep knocking our heads against the wall, politically,” said Klinsky, he and Bergeron started looking for more practical ways to accomplish their goal of providing free courses for credit. Their solution: a set of courses, created by top faculty at prestigious colleges, that would prepare students to take the College Board’s Advanced Placement and College Level Examination Program (CLEP) exams. (The CLEP assesses college-level knowledge in 33 subject areas, with passing scores accepted for credit at more than 2,900 institutions.)
They called the new program Freshman Year for Free, and said it could reduce the cost of a traditional four-year degree by 25 percent. Klinsky even offered to cover the fees for the first 10,000 exams.
In its first year, more than 80,000 people signed up for the courses, and a little over 5,000 requested vouchers to take a CLEP exam (none took AP exams). The actual number of test-takers may be higher, since the military pays exam fees for its members, and some learners may have paid out-of-pocket.
The completers include home-schoolers like Sarah Schneider, who took time off after finishing high school and wanted to catch up with her peers. She took seven Modern States classes while attending Baton Rouge Community College, and passed every CLEP exam, shaving a year off her college career and saving herself thousands in tuition.
Schneider, who transferred to Louisiana State University last fall, said that when she saw the ad for Modern States, she thought it must be a scam. No one would give away college credit for free. But she was paying her own way through college, and decided to give it a shot. To her surprise, the courses were at least as good—or better—than her community college ones, she said.
“I would highly recommend it to anyone trying to get through school quickly or cheaply,” she said.
The average number of courses that students complete is 1.67, and so far, 38 students have taken enough to get a full freshman year for free. But it’s early still, and Klinsky, who has spent a “few million” on the project, argues that the charity has already justified its cost, saving students an estimated $5 to $10 million, based on a typical cost of $1,000 to $2,000 per online course.
Klinsky says he isn’t bothered by the fact that only 6 percent of learners have sought exam vouchers. As he sees it, Modern States is like a free public library, where learners can choose to browse or study a topic deeply.
“If you want to learn the material and not go for credit, that’s not a failure: you’re learning what you want to learn,” he said. “No one is wasting money on an uncompleted course, because they’re not paying money.”
Those who do succeed on the tests stand to benefit in other ways. Passing even a single CLEP exam, as compared with taking the exam but failing to receive credit, leads to a 17 percent (5.7-percentage-point) increase in associate’s degree completion for students attending community colleges, according to a recent study.
As Modern States enters its second year, Klinsky is trying to build state and philanthropic support for his idea. In June, he and former Florida governor Jeb Bush penned an opinion piece that urged governors to cover the costs of the exams, arguing that it would be the most cost-effective way for them to raise state attainment rates. Klinsky is also seeking donors to subsidize the exams going forward. CLEP exams cost $87 each; AP exams cost $94.
If no one volunteers, Klinsky said he will likely continue to cover the fees, adding that even if he doesn’t, $87 for three or more college credits would still be a bargain.
Kick-Starting College
Morgan Carver Richards, 33, was an expat living in Dubai and rearing three young children when she discovered Global Freshman Academy through a search for online programs. Her husband, a pilot for Emirates airline, had attended Arizona State, so she trusted the brand, she said.
But what really sold her on the program were its low price and its convenience. She could study from home while her kids slept or played, and her credits would transfer just as if she’d taken the classes in person.
She enrolled, took 12 credits, and then transferred into the online program when her family moved back to the States two years ago. When her youngest started kindergarten last fall, she finally started taking classes in person, at the main campus. She’s on track to graduate with a bachelor’s degree in anthropology this spring or summer, and hopes to earn a PhD from Arizona State afterward.
“I was able to kick-start my life,” she said.
Global Freshman Academy, at $200 per credit hour, costs significantly less than ASU Online, which charges undergraduates $520 to $728. It’s a steal compared to Arizona State (in Tempe), where out-of-state undergraduates pay nearly $30,000 in tuition and fees.
But it’s still expensive compared to community college, where annual in-district tuition and fees averaged $3,660 in 2018, according to the College Board. And students attending community colleges qualify for federal student aid, while students in Global Freshman Academy do not.
The out-of-pocket costs could be one reason a majority of completers aren’t pursuing credit for their work. It’s also possible that some students never intend to seek credit, and enroll only for their own edification.
But why are so many failing to complete the courses to begin with? That’s a tougher question to answer, experts say.
One theory is that students aren’t finishing because they have nothing at stake. Like MOOCs, Global Freshman Academy charges nothing upfront, so students lose nothing if they drop their courses. The only learners with “skin in the game” are those who have paid a $45 fee to take proctored exams and be considered for credit.
Or maybe students are dropping out because they aren’t getting the support they need to succeed. Studies consistently show that low-income and first-generation students—the target population of Global Freshman Academy—do better in face-to-face and hybrid classes than online-only ones.
Global Freshman Academy does offer some supports, including a technical help team and teaching assistants who can answer content-related questions. The program also provides students with personalized feedback on what they’ve learned and how much they’ve retained.
But at-risk undergraduates often need more than just technical or academic assistance; they also need emotional support and encouragement, said Phil Hill, co-publisher of the e-Literate blog.
Richards, who had taken only a couple of community-college courses before enrolling in Global Freshman Academy, said she adjusted easily to the technology behind the program. The only technical challenge occurred during one final exam, when her answers weren’t recorded and she couldn’t get credit for the course.
Still, she says she prefers learning in person, where she can interact one-on-one with her professors and peers.
“I benefit from being able to ask questions during lectures, and to sit down and have a face-to-face conversation if I’m struggling,” she said.
<div id="attachment_49688146" style="width: 700px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img class="size-full wp-image-49688146" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext_XIX_2_field_img02.jpg" alt="" width="690" />From left to right: Steven B. Klinsky, founder and CEO of the nonprofit Modern States; Burck Smith, founder of StraighterLine; Michael Crow, president of Arizona State University</div>
Grad School Online
The difference between undergraduate and graduate students may explain why students have performed better in MOOC-inspired master’s programs, such as Georgia Institute of Technology’s online master’s in computer science, than in Global Freshman Academy. Graduate students tend to be more mature, independent learners who “know what they want” and have the self-discipline and study skills to succeed online, Hill said.
Georgia Tech’s program, which was developed with another MOOC platform, Udacity, costs about a sixth of the price of an in-person degree, and has a retention rate of 60 percent. This year, 1 out of every 12 of the nation’s graduates with a master’s in computer science will come from the Georgia Tech online program.
Moreover, the program seems to be serving an older, domestic population of students who would not otherwise get master’s degrees, according to a recent analysis by researchers at Harvard University and Georgia Tech (see “<a href="https://www.educationnext.org/elite-grad-school-degree-goes-online-georgia-tech-virtual-masters-increase-access-education/" target="_blank">An Elite Grad-School Program Goes Online</a>,” research, Summer 2018).
Agarwal of edX views the recent embrace of “MicroMasters” programs as evidence that the MOOCs-for-credit concept is catching on in change-resistant academe. Such programs consist of online graduate-level courses that lead to a certificate in a professional career area, such as health-care administration, business fundamentals, and design thinking. More than 30 institutions, including prestigious ones such as Columbia University, have joined an edX consortium offering the credentials. All the edX MicroMasters allow students to apply the course credits toward a full master’s program.
Comparing Global Freshman Academy to these programs may not be entirely fair: after all, the Georgia Tech and MicroMasters students have invested money up front; Global Freshman Academy’s have not. Still, the success of Georgia Tech’s program raises questions about whether the model can have the same impact with a more at-risk, undergraduate population.
“There’s a bit of danger in the tech world of thinking if you just find the right technology, you will solve problems that are a lot deeper than technological problems,” said Joshua Goodman, an associate professor of public policy at Harvard and one of the researchers who studied Georgia Tech’s program. “The technology may remove some barriers, but not all.”
Zvi Galil, dean of Georgia Tech’s College of Computing, said undergraduates who study solely online miss out on the maturing, socializing, and networking that take place on campus. Still, he believes that delivering some freshmen-level courses online could shorten the time students spend in the classroom—and lower their costs. His university is experimenting with that approach now, with a few introductory computer-science courses. For now, the institution offers no tuition cut for students who choose the online option, but Galil hopes it will in the future.
Galil sees Arizona State’s efforts to dramatically lower the cost of freshman year as “in the same spirit as what we do.”
“Michael Crow is a visionary,” he said of ASU’s president.
Looking Forward
But is Crow’s vision sustainable? It costs Arizona State at least $100,000 to build each course offered through Global Freshman Academy. The university has developed 14 so far and plans to create a total of at least 25. To recoup that initial $2.5 million, the college would need to have 4,166 completers pay for credit.
Regier, a former accounting professor, said he’s confident that the program will prove a good investment for the university as more students discover it. He points out that the cost of running the program, once the courses are developed, is pretty low.
In an effort to grow its user base, the university is reaching out to school districts in major cities, including Chicago and Los Angeles. “We’re still in a maturation phase,” Regier said.
Still, experts say that if Global Freshman Academy is going to live up to its potential to democratize higher education, it will need to do more than just broaden the funnel; it will need to take a hard look at which students are succeeding, what it must do to recruit more of them, and how it can get more would-be dropouts to persist.
The question, said Louis Soares, chief learning and innovation officer at the American Council on Education, is, “Can you improve the results, and is there a plan to do so?”
Meanwhile, critics of the program continue to see it as a menace—if a slightly less scary one.
“It may not be a particularly effective weapon,” said Rees, the CSU Pueblo professor. “But at the same time, a lot of people may be wounded by it. . . . I worry about an all-MOOC education, making both better online and face-to-face programs no longer economically viable.”
But Jeffrey J. Selingo, who has written books on disruption in higher education, said programs like Global Freshman Academy will never displace traditional colleges and universities.
“The markets out there are huge, not only in the U.S., but around the world. You’re not going to be able to squeeze every high-school graduate through the same pathway that everyone traditionally followed,” Selingo said.
“To me, it’s not a threat; it’s an expansion.”
Kelly Field is a freelance journalist based in Boston who covers higher education.
<div class='shareaholic-canvas' data-app='share_buttons' data-title='Entree to Freshman Year' data-link='https://www.educationnext.org/entree-to-freshman-year-online-programs-offer-low-cost-courses-college-credit/' data-summary='Online programs offer low-cost courses for college credit' data-app-id='28510232' data-app-id-name='category_below_content'></div>";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:13;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:93:"

";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:3:{s:0:"";a:6:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:84:"Allowing Researchers to See What Goes On in the Classroom – by Michael J. Petrilli";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:70:"https://www.educationnext.org/allowing-researchers-see-goes-classroom/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Thu, 06 Dec 2018 15:13:38 +0000";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"category";a:12:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:4:"Blog";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:1;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:9:"Editorial";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:2;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"Technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:3;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:17:"academic research";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:4;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"digital learning";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:5;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:18:"education research";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:6;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:20:"education technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:7;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:19:"Michael J. Petrilli";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:8;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"Michael Petrilli";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:9;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:13:"Mike Petrilli";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:10;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:27:"technology in the classroom";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:11;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:22:"technology integration";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49687870";s:7:"attribs";a:1:{s:0:"";a:1:{s:11:"isPermaLink";s:5:"false";}}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:144:"Technology might allow us to collect detailed information about classroom practice that would help us learn what’s working and what’s not.
";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:32:"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/";a:1:{s:7:"creator";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:19:"Michael J. Petrilli";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:40:"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:14276:"<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-49687873" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext-dec18-blog-petrilli-google-class.jpg" alt="" width="690" />
I’m in the middle of a series of posts looking at how we might usher in a “<a href="https://www.educationnext.org/reach-end-education-policy-need-golden-age-educational-practice/" target="_blank">Golden Age of Educational Practice</a>” now that big new policy initiatives appear to be on ice. Last week I claimed that all of the possibilities that might work at scale entail <a href="https://edexcellence.net/articles/the-way-to-improve-educational-practice-at-scale-is-to-invest-in-rd" target="_blank">various investments in innovation and R&amp;D</a>. Such efforts will only be successful, though, with exponentially better insight into what’s actually happening in the classroom.
That’s because, right now, key decision-makers are flying blind. Consider just a few examples of questions that have been raised in recent weeks that we simply cannot answer:
• Is student achievement flat because teachers are implementing Common Core, and it’s not working? Or is it flat because are teachers mostly ignoring Common Core? Or is it neither of the above? <a href="https://twitter.com/MichaelPetrilli/status/1055454785451843591" target="_blank">We have no idea</a>.
• Has “balanced literacy” served as a Trojan Horse that allowed whole-language reading instruction to continue unabated in our elementary schools, instead of a scientifically-based approach with a big emphasis on phonics and phonemic awareness? Is this an issue in relatively few schools or lots of schools? <a href="https://www.apmreports.org/story/2018/09/10/hard-words-why-american-kids-arent-being-taught-to-read" target="_blank">We have no idea</a>.
• Are most high schools teaching a Howard Zinn–inspired version of U.S. history, with an overwhelming focus on our country’s injustices, as opposed to its triumphs, too? Or is this just happening in deep-blue bubbles? <a href="https://www.the74million.org/goldberg-schools-need-to-embrace-a-civic-education-that-values-patriotism-over-victimhood/" target="_blank">We have no idea</a>.
And it’s not just policy wonks or education scholars that lack information; leaders at state and local levels have too little insight into classroom practice as well. Whereas the world outside of our schools has been transformed by information technology, the data we collect on classroom practices is somewhere between nonexistent and laughably rudimentary. In other words, we know almost nothing about almost everything that matters.
To be sure, education research improved dramatically starting in the early 2000s with the creation of the Institute of Education Sciences, the federal mandate for annual tests in grades three through eight, and the concurrent development of longitudinal data systems in most states. Scholars suddenly had the money and the data to examine a variety of educational interventions and their impact on student achievement, significantly increasing our understanding of what’s working to boost student outcomes.
Yet the vast majority of such studies rely on state “administrative data”—information that is collected to enable our systems to keep humming along, but that can also be happily recycled as markers of various inputs or programs whose effectiveness might be studied. Lots of this is related to teacher characteristics—their years of experience, race, training, and credentials. Other data captures bits of the student experience—their attendance patterns, course-taking habits, family background—and that of their peers.
This is all well and good but it’s still very limited. We end up studying the shadow of educational practice rather than the real thing. What we don’t see is what’s actually going on in the classroom—the day-to-day work of teachers and their students—the curriculum, the assignments, the marks students receive, the quality of instruction itself. We simply don’t know what kids do all day: the books they read, the tasks they’re asked to perform, the textbooks teachers use—or even whether they’re used at all or sit unopened in the closet, whether programs are implemented with fidelity, haphazardly, or not at all.
Examining practice has always been a difficult and expensive proposition. The most respected approach involves putting lots of trained observers—often graduate students—in the back of classrooms. There, they typically watch closely and code various aspects of teaching and learning, or collect video and spend innumerable hours coding it by hand. This is incredibly labor-intensive and costs gobs of money, so it is relatively rare.
Alternatives to observational studies are much less satisfying. The most common is to survey teachers about their classroom practices or curricula, as is done with the background questionnaires given to teachers as part of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Though useful, these types of surveys have big limitations, as they rely on teachers to be accurate reporters of their own practice—which is tough even with positive intentions. It’s also hard to know whom to survey about some information; for example, Morgan Polikoff, associate professor of K–12 policy at the University of Southern California, <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-challenges-of-curriculum-materials-as-a-reform-lever/" target="_blank">has been trying</a> to understand which textbooks schools are using, and is finding that, in many districts, nobody can give him a straight answer.
So that’s the challenge: We lack the systems to collect detailed information about classroom practice that might help us learn what’s working and what’s not, and inform changes in direction at all levels of governance.
Thankfully there are potential solutions. I see three:
1. Take advantage of data already being collected by online learning providers and services, such as Google Classroom, to gain insights into our schools;
2. Systematically collect a sample of student assignments, complete with teacher feedback, to learn more about the “enacted curriculum,” its level of challenge, and its variation; and
3. Use video or audio recording technology in a small sample of schools to better understand instructional practice in America today.
The first possibility is a cousin of using administrative data to power research studies. Online learning platforms like Khan Academy and services like Google Classroom are already collecting reams of data about teaching and learning, but to my knowledge, these data remain largely proprietary and locked away. Surely it would be possible to protect student privacy and any trade secrets while allowing researchers to gain insights into what’s working in our schools.
Google Classroom seems particularly promising, given that, by some accounts, <a href="https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/joannaallhands/2017/10/09/google-classroom-changing-teachers-students-education/708246001/" target="_blank">more than two-thirds of districts use it today</a>. Imagine if scholars could view, anonymously, student essays and other assignments. With the help of machine learning, we could figure out how much variation there is in the level of challenge of the assignments and in the grading standards. And we could glimpse if schools with tougher assignments and higher grading standards were getting better results in terms of student learning, after controlling for background factors. We might also be able to tell which curriculum a given teacher or school was using and the degree of alignment between student assignments and grade-level standards.
This approach would be particularly useful for middle and high schools, given that many assignments are now completed online. But what about elementary schools, where paper-and-pencil worksheets still largely rule the roost? That brings us to our second big idea. Imagine if we could identify a nationally representative sample of elementary schools where researchers would collect a sample of student work on a regular basis—worksheets, quizzes, tests, etc. The research initiative would develop an easy-to-use mechanism for digitizing these materials, adding value to the teacher and the school. For example, a scanner could be provided that makes copies of marked-up worksheets and quizzes, automatically enters the grades into teachers’ electronic grade-books, puts an electronic copy in a students’ online portfolio, and sends the image to parents’ emails. Meanwhile the information is sent to the researchers, connected securely to each students’ profile, and anonymized. (Xerox’s XEAMS initiative <a href="http://a400.g.akamai.net/7/400/14595/v0001/xeroxwebcast.download.akamai.com/14595/employeeportal/XEAMSinRB.pdf" target="_blank">experimented with some aspects of this</a>; <a href="https://www.classdojo.com/studentstories/" target="_blank">Class Dojo</a> has some of these functionalities, too, with students scanning their work with iPads.)
Just as with Google Classroom, we’d make a quantum leap in our understanding about the curriculum our schools are using, the level of rigor in student assignments, teachers’ grading standards, and much more.
The third big idea, and also the most controversial, is to record what’s happening in a sample of our classrooms. (Audio is less intrusive than video, and gives you just as much information.) Using a smart speaker like Amazon’s Echo or a Google Home Mini, researchers could capture the play-by-play of instructional practice and then train algorithms to make sense of what’s going on. As I explained in my <a href="https://www.educationnext.org/big-data-transforms-education-research-can-machine-learning-unlock-keys-to-great-teaching/" target="_blank">Education Next column</a> earlier this year, this is no longer the stuff of science fiction. Researchers are already doing this to glean insights into the kind of questions teachers are asking—and which approaches work best to drive student engagement and learning.
They start by capturing high-quality audio, and then run the audio files through several speech-recognition programs, producing a transcript. Then their algorithm goes to work, looking at both the transcript and the audio files (which have markers for intonation, tempo, and more) to match codes provided by human observers.
The computer program has gotten quite good at detecting different types of activities—lectures versus group discussion versus seatwork, for example—and is starting to be able to also differentiate between good and bad questions. Humans are still more reliable coders, especially for ambiguous cases. But the computers are getting better and better, and good enough that, with sufficient data, they can already produce some very reliable findings at a fraction of the cost of a people-powered study.
Connect all of this up to state administrative data and student achievement data and we would finally have an accurate picture of what’s actually going on in U.S. schools. (We’d know, for example, the degree to which schools are narrowing the curriculum and squeezing out science and social studies.) And we’d have vastly more information with which to study the effectiveness of various instructional and curricular approaches.
Big hurdles remain, to be sure. The biggest aren’t technological, but political: Such an effort must earn the trust of teachers and parents. We must be able to promise that none of the data will be used to evaluate or punish teachers; it must also be protected with the highest level of data security. None of that would be easy, but by allowing schools to opt-in, and by starting with a small pilot, such an initiative might earn the trust of key stakeholders over time.
To be clear, this is a different idea than putting a camera or microphone in every classroom—akin to body cameras or dashboard cameras for police. <a href="https://www.educationnext.org/lights-camera-action/" target="_blank">I’ve written about that notion too</a>, and see potential value in it, but it raises Orwellian questions that are a whole order of magnitude higher.
The goal here is to accelerate the R&amp;D process by improving our ability to learn about instruction. For that purpose, a relatively small number of schools or classrooms—in communities that volunteer to participate—would do the trick.
* * *
To be clear, collecting better information about classroom practice is just one part of the puzzle. We also need to fund rigorous studies to turn the data into insights about what’s working, and then have to figure out how to get evidence-based practices into the schools. I will tackle all of that in future posts. But without good data, any R&amp;D strategy is destined to fail. It’s a critical foundation, and one that is not nearly sturdy enough today.
— Mike Petrilli
Mike Petrilli is president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, research fellow at Stanford University&#8217;s Hoover Institution, and executive editor of Education Next.
This post originally appeared in <a href="https://edexcellence.net/articles/to-improve-educational-practice-let-researchers-peek-into-the-black-box-of-the-classroom" target="_blank">Flypaper</a>.
<div class='shareaholic-canvas' data-app='share_buttons' data-title='Allowing Researchers to See What Goes On in the Classroom' data-link='https://www.educationnext.org/allowing-researchers-see-goes-classroom/' data-summary='Technology might allow us to collect detailed information about classroom practice that would help us learn what’s working and what’s not.' data-app-id='28510232' data-app-id-name='category_below_content'></div>";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:15;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:69:"

";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:5:{s:0:"";a:7:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:105:"There’s a Reason Why Teachers Don’t Use the Software Provided By Their Districts – by Thomas Arnett";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:90:"https://www.educationnext.org/theres-reason-teachers-dont-use-software-provided-districts/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"comments";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:99:"https://www.educationnext.org/theres-reason-teachers-dont-use-software-provided-districts/#comments";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:50:34 +0000";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"category";a:10:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:4:"Blog";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:1;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:9:"Editorial";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:2;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"Technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:3;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:18:"education software";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:4;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:8:"software";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:5;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:8:"teachers";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:6;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:24:"technology and schooling";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:7;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:27:"technology in the classroom";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:8;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:22:"technology integration";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:9;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:13:"Thomas Arnett";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49687772";s:7:"attribs";a:1:{s:0:"";a:1:{s:11:"isPermaLink";s:5:"false";}}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:191:"A recent report found that most educational software licenses go unused in K-12 districts. The findings unveil a clear disconnect between district software procurement and classroom practice.";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:32:"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/";a:1:{s:7:"creator";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:13:"Thomas Arnett";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:40:"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:9432:"<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-49687771" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext-nov18-blog-arnett-old-software.jpg" alt="" width="690" />
Earlier this month, education news <a href="https://edscoop.com/most-educational-software-licenses-arent-used-in-k-12-districts/" target="_blank">outlets</a> <a href="https://www.edsurge.com/news/2018-11-08-why-aren-t-schools-using-the-apps-they-pay-for" target="_blank">buzzed</a> with a frustrating, yet unsurprising, headline: Most educational software licenses go unused in K-12 districts. The source of the headline is a recent <a href="http://pages.brightbytes.net/LOSnapappInfographic_LOCalculatorLP.html" target="_blank">report</a> by Ryan Baker, director of the University of Pennsylvania&#8217;s Center for Learning Analytics. Baker analyzed data from BrightBytes, a K-12 data management company, on students&#8217; technology usage across 48 districts. That data revealed that a median of 70% of districts&#8217; software licenses never get used, and a median of 97.6% of licenses are never used intensively.
The findings unveil a clear disconnect between district software procurement and classroom practice. To be clear, not all software is high quality, which means teachers may have good reason to not adopt some software products that fail to deliver positive student learning outcomes. But for quality software tools that can yield breakthrough student outcomes, underutilization is a huge missed opportunity.
So when districts license high-quality educational software, why might teachers still choose not to use the software at their disposal? Some of our latest research at the Christensen Institute offers answers to this question.
Understanding teachers&#8217; &#8216;Jobs&#8217;
In September, my colleagues and I <a href="https://www.christenseninstitute.org/publications/teachers-jobs-to-be-done/" target="_blank">released a research paper</a> that explains what motivates teachers to change how they teach. Drawing on the <a href="https://www.christenseninstitute.org/jobs-to-be-done/" target="_blank">Jobs to be Done Theory</a>, we interviewed teachers to discover the &#8216;Jobs&#8217; that motivate them to adopt blended learning or other new approaches to instruction.
According to the theory, all people—teachers included—are internally motivated to make changes in their lives that move them toward success or satisfaction within their particular life circumstances. The theory labels these circumstance-based desires as &#8216;Jobs.&#8217; Just as people &#8216;hire&#8217; contractors to help them build houses or lawyers to help them build a case, people search for something they can &#8216;hire&#8217; to help them when &#8216;Jobs&#8217; arise in their lives.
Through our interviews we found four Jobs that often motivate teachers to adopt new practices. Three of these Jobs seem relevant for explaining why licensed software often goes unused.
Job #1: Help me lead the way in improving my school. Teachers with this Job are eager to demonstrate their value as contributors to broader school improvement. These teachers will be interested in using district-licensed software when it 1) seems like a viable and worthwhile way to improve the school as a whole, 2) seems simple and straightforward to share with their colleagues, and 3) offers them an opportunity to help shape the direction of school improvement efforts.
Job #2: Help me find manageable ways to engage and challenge more of my students. Teachers with this Job are generally confident with how teaching and learning happen in their classrooms. But they have a few students each year who they struggle to reach. They are often open to software as a way to engage those students. But that software must not only be worthwhile for their students, but also practical to incorporate into their current practices and routines.
Job #3: Help me replace a broken instructional model so I can reach each student. Whether from perpetually low test scores, low graduation rates, ongoing student behavior issues, or a general sense that learning lacks joy and passion, teachers with this Job struggle constantly with a sense that they aren&#8217;t living up to their responsibilities to their students. For these teachers, software can be a powerful resource for helping them transform their instructional models. But that software needs to offer new approaches to teaching and learning, not just new takes on traditional textbooks and worksheets.
Accounting for the 70% of unused software licenses
We suspect that in many cases, quality software goes unused because it either fails to align with teachers&#8217; Jobs or fumbles at delivering a good solution for meeting their Jobs.
For example, teachers who are looking to lead the way in helping their schools improve (Job 1) likely don&#8217;t look first to software as a way to fulfill their Job. Their school improvement instincts typically orient them to look for new instructional programs, not silver bullet software. To meet their Job to be Done, software providers need to start by offering an evidence-based set of practices that will help schools improve on key metrics. Then, once they&#8217;ve made the case for new instructional methods, they can discuss how software tools help to facilitate those methods.
As another example, teachers in search of manageable ways to engage and challenge more of their students (Job 2) could find a lot of benefit in the multimedia-rich and game-like aspects of many edtech products. But software platforms that are great for engaging students may yet fail to get used because teachers find them hard to incorporate into daily lessons. Software developers, hardware suppliers, and district technology teams all need to consider things they can do to make it easy for teachers to incorporate software into their lesson plans and then manage devices during class.
As a third example, consider a teacher who is frustrated by a sense that he is failing to meet the needs of most of his students because he feels stuck teaching to the nonexistent middle of his class (Job 3). The right software could be a powerful platform for helping him create individual learning pathways and mastery-based progressions that meet each of his students where they are. But if the software available from his district just supplements whole-class, direct instruction, that software won&#8217;t fulfill his Job.
Explaining why 97.6% of software licenses are never used intensively
One significant finding from our research illustrates another potential pitfall for software utilization. When new software licenses come down from the district office without clearly communicated benefits for teachers or pedagogical support, many teachers likely take a quick look and conclude that the software doesn&#8217;t fulfill any of the first three Jobs for them. Nevertheless, they feel compelled to use the software, at least occasionally, so as to not set a bad tone with their administrators. They do what they need to do to check the appropriate boxes on their teacher evaluation rubrics, but they don&#8217;t actually use the software enough for it to make a difference for them and their students. The new Job that the software creates for them amounts to, “Help me not fall behind on my school&#8217;s new initiative.” This insight likely explains why even though 30% of software licenses that get used, only 2.4% are used intensively.
In education, money isn&#8217;t easy to come by, which makes it especially frustrating to learn that many districts spend money on software that doesn&#8217;t get used. The district staff members who make software licensing decisions surely don&#8217;t intend for their purchases to go to waste. But yet, as Baker&#8217;s report illustrates, there is a disconnect between software purchases and classroom adoption. A good sales pitch may get a product through the district office&#8217;s front door. But only by helping teachers fulfill their Jobs can high-quality educational software make it through the classroom door and into the hands of students. In short, software only gets used in classrooms when it meets a Job to be Done for teachers.
— Thomas Arnett
Thomas Arnett is a Research Fellow of Education at the Clayton Christensen Institute.
This post originally appeared on <a href="https://www.christenseninstitute.org/blog/theres-a-reason-why-teachers-dont-use-the-software-provided-by-their-districts/" target="_blank">ChristensenInstitute.org</a>.
<div class='shareaholic-canvas' data-app='share_buttons' data-title='There’s a Reason Why Teachers Don&#039;t Use the Software Provided By Their Districts' data-link='https://www.educationnext.org/theres-reason-teachers-dont-use-software-provided-districts/' data-summary='A recent report found that most educational software licenses go unused in K-12 districts. The findings unveil a clear disconnect between district software procurement and classroom practice.' data-app-id='28510232' data-app-id-name='category_below_content'></div>";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:36:"http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/";a:1:{s:10:"commentRss";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:95:"https://www.educationnext.org/theres-reason-teachers-dont-use-software-provided-districts/feed/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:38:"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/";a:1:{s:8:"comments";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:1:"2";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:16;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:69:"

";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:5:{s:0:"";a:7:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:92:"From Cat Videos and Cooking Tips to the History of the Punic Wars – by Michael J. Petrilli";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:112:"https://www.educationnext.org/from-cat-videos-cooking-tips-to-history-of-punic-wars-educational-content-youtube/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"comments";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:121:"https://www.educationnext.org/from-cat-videos-cooking-tips-to-history-of-punic-wars-educational-content-youtube/#comments";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Wed, 03 Oct 2018 05:15:40 +0000";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"category";a:17:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:6:"Briefs";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:1;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:7:"Journal";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:2;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"Technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:3;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:9:"What Next";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:4;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:20:"education technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:5;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"education videos";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:6;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:13:"Extra Credits";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:7;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:13:"James Portnow";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:8;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:12:"Khan Academy";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:9;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:19:"Michael J. Petrilli";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:10;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"Michael Petrilli";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:11;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:13:"Mike Petrilli";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:12;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:8:"sal khan";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:13;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:11:"salman khan";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:14;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:15:"streaming video";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:15;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:6:"videos";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:16;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:7:"YouTube";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49687091";s:7:"attribs";a:1:{s:0:"";a:1:{s:11:"isPermaLink";s:5:"false";}}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:38:"Educational content comes to YouTube
";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:32:"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/";a:1:{s:7:"creator";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:19:"Michael J. Petrilli";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:40:"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:8496:"<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-49687089" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext_XVIX_1_whatnext_img01.jpg" alt="" width="690" />
I don’t mean to brag, but my 10-year-old son knows all about Admiral Yi Sun-sin, a 16th-century naval commander who successfully fended off several Japanese invasions of the Korean peninsula. That’s not because I’m some sort of Korean history expert or parenting genius, and it’s not because he studied it in school. It’s because I’m such a pushover when it comes to screen time that, in a moment of boredom, he stumbled across a series of 10-minute videos about Yi’s victories on the YouTube channel Extra Credits Extra History. And he loved every second of them.
Extra History is one of a growing number of YouTube channels providing engaging educational videos for free. While Khan Academy’s videos are well known and well respected in education circles, they are hardly alone. On YouTube at least, Khan’s 4 million subscribers are rivaled by MinutePhysics, with 4.4 million, and TedEd, with more than 6 million, and Crash Course, with almost 8 million subscribers, and they are blown out of the water by Vsauce, with 13 million. And unlike Khan, these upstarts are growing and putting out content without the help of philanthropists.
Fun and educational screen time? From the perspective of a parent or a kid, these videos are like manna from heaven. What should educators think?
Videos that engage
James Portnow is the founder of the Extra Credits YouTube channel and owner of the production company behind its videos. Extra Credits started as a channel for gamers, especially those interested in historical war games like Empire: Total War, where players can pretend to be, say, Napoleon, and marshal armies across the plains of Europe (yes, this is a thing). So it wasn’t such a stretch when the makers of some of those games approached Portnow about making videos about history itself. Their first series was about the Punic Wars, and it went viral, with some of its videos logging more than a million views. Extra History is up to 226 videos at last count, with topics spanning the world and various epochs. Many are focused on military history (understandable, given the channel’s genesis) with occasional diversions, such as the history of public health.
Portnow told me that he has long been interested in education, and in making it more engaging and enjoyable. But he chafes at the “edu-tainment” label. Originally that term referred to “educators making fun videos,” he said. But most were deadly boring.
Portnow and his team of writers and animators, on the other hand, come from the worlds of gaming and television production. As such, they are experts in engagement. “There are common techniques,” he explained. It’s the same stuff that works for TV shows, or pop songs, or video games. “We always have a hook. There’s a through line. Cliffhanger endings. And most importantly, we ask ourselves, ‘What’s engaging about this subject? Why would someone want to learn this thing?’”
They also pay attention to the “excitement and engagement curve.” The basic idea is that humans desire a certain amount of excitement and engagement—and it can’t be nonstop. Any good movie, for example, has moments of high action, and other times when the audience can rest. That is necessary for educational videos, too.   
Learning outside the classroom
So is enthusiasm. That’s the secret to the success of another YouTuber, Emily Graslie, creator of the science-oriented Brain Scoop channel. And “tangibly enthusiastic” she is (in her own words), covering topics big and small, common and out there, from the dissection of animals and the lives of arachnids to touchier issues like menstruation and the harassment of women in the media. It’s clearly working, given her almost half a million subscribers, 40 percent of whom are female. (For most science channels, it’s more like 10 or 15 percent.)
Unfortunately, it’s hard for Graslie or any other YouTuber to know much more about who is watching; many registered viewers are in the 18- to 35-year-old category, but it could be kids who are streaming the videos on their parents’ accounts. Graslie’s channel is part of an education-and-outreach role at the Field Museum in Chicago, where she is the “chief curiosity correspondent,” and she’s done a lot of outreach to Chicagoland teachers. But she isn’t sure about the extent of her videos’ use in the classroom.
Sal Khan sees this growing sector as a “super-positive development,” and isn’t particularly worried about the competition to his organization’s offerings. While YouTube is a point of entry for many of Khan Academy’s users, it gets just a fraction of the website’s traffic. “We have 65 million registered users, with 15 million students using our resources every month,” he said. Two thirds of them are in the United States.
“The core area where most of Khan Academy’s resources go is around practice, samples, articles, and feedback,” he said. “Videos are just part of the larger picture.”
Unlike the other YouTubers, Khan Academy is “trying to optimize for content retention and learning. Engagement is important but not our first priority.” This eat-your-broccoli approach has proven appealing to major private foundations and corporations, including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Google, and many others. With their support, Khan can provide his resources to students for free, without advertising.
Most of the upstarts, on the other hand, have had to be more entrepreneurial. For Extra Credits, gaming companies have paid for many of their series; the games get name-checked in return. Several channels ask for donations from viewers via micro-giving site Patreon—and impressively enough, it works. (“People are surprisingly OK with paying for things they like,” Portnow told me.) And, yes, YouTube advertises, and shares some of its revenue with the content creators. A Fortnite ad popped up while I was sampling 
a Crash Course video, for example, which made me wonder what teenager didn’t already know about Fortnite. Purists may chafe at having their kids targeted for marketing, but given the high-quality content on offer, it’s a bargain that I am willing to make.
From screens to the wider world
Perhaps that’s the most interesting thing about this development: the videos are remarkably good. I can’t claim to have viewed every video from Extra History, or Crash Course, or Vsauce, or the many other channels available out there, but what I’ve seen so far is surprisingly substantive, intellectually challenging, and fun. In this corner of educational content, at least, crowdsourcing seems to be identifying great stuff.
And while Khan is right that videos aren’t everything—kids need to be reading, writing, and getting feedback from real, live adults, too—something beats nothing. As E. D. Hirsch Jr. has argued for more than three decades, a systemic, coherent approach to building content knowledge and vocabulary is still sorely needed. I believe wise teachers could make good use of these videos to that end.
Not only can these channels give parents and kids a potential compromise when it comes to screen time at home, they might also help bridge some stubborn curriculum gaps in school as well. As long as America’s schools give short shrift to history, science, and other core content areas, these YouTube channels will continue to be places where kids can soak up knowledge that our system refuses to prioritize.
Mike Petrilli is president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, and executive editor of Education Next.
<div class='shareaholic-canvas' data-app='share_buttons' data-title='From Cat Videos and Cooking Tips to the History of the Punic Wars' data-link='https://www.educationnext.org/from-cat-videos-cooking-tips-to-history-of-punic-wars-educational-content-youtube/' data-summary='Educational content comes to YouTube' data-app-id='28510232' data-app-id-name='category_below_content'></div>";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:36:"http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/";a:1:{s:10:"commentRss";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:117:"https://www.educationnext.org/from-cat-videos-cooking-tips-to-history-of-punic-wars-educational-content-youtube/feed/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:38:"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/";a:1:{s:8:"comments";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:1:"1";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:19;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:78:"

";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:5:{s:0:"";a:7:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:67:"Not Just What But Who You Know Matters – by Julia Freeland Fisher";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:93:"https://www.educationnext.org/not-just-what-but-who-you-know-matters-freeland-fisher-excerpt/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"comments";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:102:"https://www.educationnext.org/not-just-what-but-who-you-know-matters-freeland-fisher-excerpt/#comments";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Wed, 29 Aug 2018 04:05:07 +0000";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"category";a:13:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:5:"Books";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:1;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"Technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:2;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:8:"Web-Only";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:3;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:13:"Daniel Fisher";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:4;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"disruption";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:5;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:21:"disruptive innovation";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:6;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:20:"education technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:7;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:22:"educational technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:8;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:26:"Every Student Succeeds Act";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:9;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:21:"Julia Freeland Fisher";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:10;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:22:"technology integration";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:11;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:12:"Who You Know";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:12;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:66:"Who You Know: Unlocking Innovations That Expand Students' Networks";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49686758";s:7:"attribs";a:1:{s:0:"";a:1:{s:11:"isPermaLink";s:5:"false";}}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:60:"An Excerpt from Julia Freeland Fisher's book "Who You Know" ";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:32:"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/";a:1:{s:7:"creator";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:21:"Julia Freeland Fisher";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:40:"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:22528:"<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-49686756" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext-sept18-web-freeland-excerpt-homepage.jpg" alt="" width="690" />
Julia Freeland Fisher’s new book <a href="https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Who+You+Know%3A+Unlocking+Innovations+That+Expand+Students%27+Networks-p-9781119452928" target="_blank">Who You Know: Unlocking Innovations that Expand Students’ Networks</a> explores how schools can invest in the power of relationships to break the pattern of inequality in American classrooms. In this excerpt, Fisher describes how technology has the potential to help students develop social capital.
When President George W. Bush rolled out his flagship 2001 No Child Left Behind Education Act, his vision was seemingly simple: by measuring student outcomes and requiring that chronically underperforming schools improve, we could successfully close stubborn racial and socioeconomic achievement gaps by 2014.
<img class="alignright size-full wp-image-49686755" style="float: right;padding-top: 5px;padding-bottom: 5px;padding-left: 5px" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext-sept18-web-freeland-excerpt-cover.jpg" alt="" width="400" />What students knew—or didn’t know—sat at the core of this vision. When Bush signed the bill he insisted that schools needed to focus on the basics. “Every school has a job to do,” he said. “And that’s to teach the basics and teach them well. If we want to make sure no child is left behind, every child must learn to read. And every child must learn to add and subtract.”
The federal law, in other words, squarely focused on nailing basic proficiency in literacy and numeracy. Years later, despite modest improvement—and a few pockets of great success—schools are still scrambling to meet this charge, particularly those serving high poverty and minority populations. Meanwhile, political battles wage over precisely what standards states should aim to meet and the best methods of teaching to get us there. In short, schools and society remain intently focused on what students know.
This focus suffers from a critical blind spot. With everyone talking about what our students do and don’t know, no one is talking about whom students know. A child’s network—his reservoir of social capital and ability to bank on that capital for support, advice, or opportunities down the line—remains largely determined by random luck: the luck of where children are born, whom their parents know, and whom they happen to end up sitting next to in class.
Today, even under the new Every Student Succeeds Act, our education system focuses the majority of its energy on getting better and better at delivering and measuring what students know. Policies and norms have largely eclipsed whom students know from our education agenda. The system in turn vastly undervalued children and young adults’ access to meaningful networks, which leads to stark gaps in access to mentors, supportive adults, industry experts and diverse peer groups. As a result, advantageous connections, formal and informal mentors, peer networks, and exposure to professions and professionals reside in exclusive networks that children access by sheer luck of the draw.
It bears noting that schools are not causing these gaps. Rather, by design they do little to resolve them. Children’s immediate community—not merely their school—holds a monopoly on their network. Schools, however, institutionalize this monopoly by closing rather than opening their doors to people beyond what John Dewey dubbed schools’ “embryonic community.”
The potential to disrupt opportunity gaps
But disruptive innovations are beginning to emerge that will reshape how schools can connect students to coaches, mentors, experts, and peers. These innovations stand to radically expand students’ access to social capital down the line. Online coaching, mentoring, and tutoring programs are beginning to penetrate schools and homes. Online peer networks—sometimes seen merely as social networks for sharing silly photos or vapid life updates—are increasingly used to connect students to additional resources otherwise out of reach.
And inside of classrooms themselves, students are starting to interact with real-life experts from a wealth of industries using video chats and social learning platforms. Finally, new human capital management systems—modeled on two-sided platforms that align new channels of supply and demand, like Uber and eBay—are beginning to unlock a latent supply of local experts, community members, and supportive adults who can slot into schools. In light of these innovations, how students connect—to one another, to their teachers, and to new adult mentors, industry experts, and role models—stands to shift dramatically in the coming decades. These innovations in turn stand to disrupt the limitations ingrained in all students’ inherited networks.
These developments are truly remarkable if we consider how unimaginable they were only a few decades ago. Historically, limited communications and transportation infrastructure made it difficult—if not logistically impossible—for schools to function as networking hubs. As a result, students’ access to networks has remained strictly bound by time and space.
Tight-knit school communities were not the only ones subject to these strict limitations. For decades, large-scale mentoring efforts like Big Brothers Big Sisters have required specific time commitments when mentors can meet in-person with mentees—a requirement that on the one hand vastly limits its ability to recruit volunteers and on the other makes mentorship a strictly local phenomenon. This poses challenges to quality and scale—quality because the costs of recruiting and retaining first-rate non-teacher volunteers is high, and scale because geographic and time limitations cap the number of feasible relationships and interactions at programs’ disposal. As a result, an estimated one in three children will grow up without a mentor.
Innovating toward relationships
With the rise of technology, however, new tools and networking models stand to break these limitations. Technology can dramatically expand young people’s access to and ability to maintain relationships with new and diverse adults and peers. Online communication tools can reach beyond geographic boundaries to forge new connections, as well as strengthen and better coordinate existing networks in their immediate communities.
With all sorts of familiar tools that have been steadily improving over the past decades—email, texting, video chatting—and even newer technologies—matching algorithms, virtual reality and artificial intelligence—students will be able to connect and form relationships more often and with more supportive adults and peers than ever before.
In case that sounds like a bleak future mediated by screens, fear not. These opportunities are also emerging through new school designs that facilitate in-person relationships more deliberately and frequently. Disruptive innovations, in other words, will not just digitize students’ social lives. Rather, innovations are starting to unlock a whole new choreography of care and opportunity across school communities, both face-to-face and online.
This networked model of education will not come about merely from existing social networking tools. Popular platforms–like Facebook and LinkedIn–tend to simply amplify students’ offline networks and tendencies, rather than forging new, different, or expanded networks. Indeed a whopping 93 percent of Facebook “friends” know each other in real life. <a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a> Instead, a new breed of edtech tools that connect students are being curated and designed in an effort to expand student networks to new corners of their communities and the globe. These new relationships and networks can in turn yield valuable headway in evening the playing field of students’ opportunities and expanding their sense of what is possible.
For example, consider Zachary, a Jamaican-born teen, who moved to the United States with his family when he was 16 years old. His high school in New York matched students with mentors using iMentor, an organization that provides a platform and curriculum that blends virtual and face-to-face mentoring. Zachary was paired with Eric, senior lawyer with the General Counsel Division of Credit Suisse. The two collaborated on the iMentor curriculum through weekly email exchanges and in-person meetings. Eric helped Zachary not only to study for the SAT, but also to build his resume, seek out summer enrichment experiences, and research college opportunities beyond his radar. In the spring of 2013, Zachary was accepted to his top-choice school, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
We all have heard inspiring stories like these. What’s unique about Zachary’s story is not that a helpful adult could get him one step closer to college or that mentorship programs could successfully forge relationships across class and race lines. Crucially, it’s the model that underlies this relationship that marks important innovation: the iMentor model leverages technology to make relationships like Zachary and Eric’s far more tenable and scalable in terms of both cost and geography. The two could keep in touch with far more regularity between in-person meetings and Eric could track Zachary’s progress against his goals in a more reliable way. <a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a>
At the same time, innovations are starting to expand students’ connections long before the college application gauntlet. In her elementary school classroom in the small rural town of Royse City, Texas, teacher Kelly Margot decided to break out of the four walls of her science class. She used a tool called Nepris, which offers access to industry experts over video. Margot ported a neurologist into her classroom during a lesson on the human brain. For some students, the brief connection fueled new academic interests. “[The next day] a student came in fired up about his next research idea over cures for neurological issues. The expert told the kids what happens in the brain that causes autism. This kid wants to know what is being done to fix it,” Margot said. For other students, Margot witnessed a different spark ignite. Her students who had not travelled beyond the Texas borders were thrilled by the chance to see the New York City skyline outside of the neurologist’s office. <a href="#_ftn3">[3]</a>
The power of technology tools, in other words, is not to just digitize existing relationships between young people and adults. Instead, these tools stand to bust through the ceiling that geography and time have long held over networks. In turn, new tools are beginning to both strengthen students’ connections and diversify their horizons.
Different connections offer different value
For many, such online connections may sound cursory at best. But sociology research into the value of relationships has revealed that different sorts of relationships tend to offer different sorts of value.
One of the key metrics that researchers use to gauge the potential value of a given relationship is its strength. The strength or weakness of a given relationship—or “tie,” in the language of sociologists—depends on the amount of time, emotional intensity, intimacy, and reciprocity that two people share. Not surprisingly, one way researchers cast strong ties is by identifying people who repeatedly interact with and rely on one another. A close family member or spouse with whom you live or a dear friend on whom you rely is a strong tie. On the other hand, a friend with whom you’ve kept in sporadic contact or a local business owner whom you see on occasion is a weak tie.
Not all strong ties are positive ties, of course. But to develop and thrive, research has long shown that all people, and young people in particular, need positive strong ties. The value of these close ties, in particular in-person ties, cannot be overstated—they predict all sorts of life outcomes like happiness, health, and even longevity. <a href="#_ftn4">[4]</a>
Those working in education witness firsthand the power of strong ties in their daily work with young people. Even a single strong, caring tie can prove especially important for at-risk youth. And more generally, students who experience a web of strong, positive relationships—be those with family, teachers, or mentors—get better grades, have higher aspirations, and engage in college-preparatory activities more frequently. <a href="#_ftn5">[5]</a>
Strong ties, however, are not the only sort of relationships that bestow value in our lives. Our strong ties often help us to get by. But they alone may not suffice when it comes to getting ahead. <a href="#_ftn6">[6]</a>
The somewhat counterintuitive truth is that although our close-knit relationships are more likely to look out for us, they may be less likely to provide us with new information or opportunities. Within a tightly-knit group of close friends or family members, group members actually end up knowing the same people. These redundant ties in turn offer redundant resources. <a href="#_ftn7">[7]</a> People in a tight-knit group know about the same information and opportunities as one another. They often exist in an echo chamber.
Instead, it turns out that more tenuous or “weak” ties, which are by definition more plentiful in our lives, can offer up new opportunities or information.
Researchers did not always understand the pivotal role that weak tie acquaintances could play in people’s lives. For a long time, conventional wisdom held that the stronger the relationship, the better. But in the early 1970s, sociologist Mark Granovetter of Johns Hopkins University set out to study how social interactions impacted social mobility. To do so, he surveyed a random sample of people living in a Boston suburb who had gotten their jobs through a personal contact. To his surprise, he found that over half of the employees said they only occasionally interacted with the contact who helped them secure their new job. <a href="#_ftn8">[8]</a>
Granovetter realized the powerful role that merely occasional contacts were playing: job seekers’ weak ties could offer new information beyond the knowledge confined to candidates’ own strong-tie networks. Observing this dynamic, Granovetter coined the catchphrase “the strength of weak ties.” This truth will resonate with anyone who has gone out looking for a job. Although a lucky few may benefit directly from a parent or close friend offering them a position, many will find themselves asking for introduction upon introduction until a series of ever-looser ties brings a new opportunity within reach.
It bears noting that ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ ties offer a mental model for thinking about gradations of connections.<a href="#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9">[9]</a> But sorting our relationships into these buckets can also risk oversimplifying the more jagged realities of our social lives. But research into the range of value that different relationships offer suggests that schools would be wise to explore the power of all sorts of ties&#8211;both weak and strong&#8211;in students lives. In the classroom described above, for instance, Margot’s students enjoyed the benefit of a brief, new connection far beyond their existing networks who could lend them new information and a new perspective into his work&#8211;and the city he inhabited.
A networked school
Schools looking to shore up students’ networks will need to tackle both ends of this strong- and weak-tie spectrum, taking into account the many nuances in between. They will need to ensure that students have access to strong ties who help them get by emotionally, physically, financially, and academically. They will also, however, need to think creatively about expanding students’ access to weak ties who might broaden the range of possibilities on students’ horizons and open the door to new opportunities and connections. For the latter, new technologies hold a competitive advantage, allowing for affordable and accessible connections across diverse populations, in brief spurts, and across space and time.
Many in education may hear this as yet another job being piled on top of already cash-strapped and busy schools. Given persistent academic achievement gaps, might it be prudent to just heed Bush’s vision and go back to basics? Ought schools really aim to do even more, when nailing basic literacy and numeracy remains insurmountable for so many?
Yes, they should. Growing students’ networks, it turns out, could prove instrumental in solving chronic challenges that our education system has struggled with in the past. For example, we know that poverty erects barriers to learning from a young age. But we don’t invest in the very social supports that could predictably combat those detrimental effects of poverty on children’s healthy development. Education reformers often lament the human capital crisis in K-12 education by citing shortages of high-quality teachers. In reality, however, the world offers an abundance of human capital across all sorts of industries and neighborhoods. We just haven’t designed a school system or the right tools to tap into that huge reserve. Similarly, advocates focus relentlessly on closing the achievement gap to enhance social mobility, yet school systematically ignore gaps in poor and minority students’ access to power and relationships that could engender such mobility. Employers consider the importance of “real-world” relevance in education, but schools fail to pursue instructional models that could connect authentically what happens inside classrooms with the wide range of industries in the real world.
These structural impediments threaten schools’ ability to address achievement and opportunity gaps alike. We can start to overcome these perennial obstacles by investing in relationships. From there, we can start to fundamentally reimagine school as a networking hub.
Julia Freeland Fisher is the director of education research at the Clayton Christensen Institute.
Adapted with permission from <a href="https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Who+You+Know%3A+Unlocking+Innovations+That+Expand+Students%27+Networks-p-9781119452935">Who You Know: Unlocking Innovations that Expand Students’ Networks</a>, published by Wiley &amp; Sons. 
<hr />
Notes:
<a name="_ftn1"></a>1. Pew Research Center, “Social Networking Sites and Our Lives,” 2011, <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/2011/06/16/social-networking-sites-and-our-lives/">http://www.pewinternet.org/2011/06/16/social-networking-sites-and-our-lives/</a>.
<a name="_ftn2"></a>2. iMENTOR. (2016). iMENTOR NYC Pair Profiles: Eric and Zachary. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.imentor.org/pair-profile/eric-and-zachary">https://www.imentor.org/pair-profile/eric-and-zachary</a>
<a name="_ftn3"></a>3. Carolan, Jennifer, (2016). “Why VR matters especially in rural schools,” TechCrunch, Retrieved from <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/19/why-vr-matters-especially-in-rural-schools">https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/19/why-vr-matters-especially-in-rural-schools</a>
<a name="_ftn4"></a>4. Pinker, S. (2014). The village effect: How face-to-face contact can make us healthier and happier. Toronto, Canada: Random House Canada. Robert Putnam’s research has likewise identified the impact that strong social capital has on health, particularly when it comes to group membership. Any aging smokers should take note: “As a rough rule of thumb, if you belong to no groups but decide to join one, you cut your risk of dying over the next year in half,” he wrote. “If you smoke and belong to no groups, it’s a toss-up statistically whether you should stop smoking or start joining.” Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
<a name="_ftn5"></a>5. “Search Institute. (n.d.). Developmental Relationships: Why Do They Matter? Retrieved from http://www.search-institute.org/what-we-study/developmental-relationships
<a name="_ftn6"></a>6. As MIT professor Xavier de Souza Briggs has noted, policymakers should pay attention to distinct forms of social capital: ties that can help us to “get by” and those that help us “get ahead.”
<a name="_ftn7"></a>7. Burt, R. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 345-423. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(00)22009-1
<a name="_ftn8"></a>8. Granovetter, M. (1973) The strength of weak ties. American Journey of Sociology, 78(6). doi:10.1086/225469
<a name="_ftn9"></a>9.For analyses that cut through overly simplistic strong- and weak-tie constructs, see, for example, Small, M. L. (2017). Someone to talk to. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Gee, L. K., Jones, J., &amp; Burke, M. (2017). Social Networks and labor markets: How strong ties relate to job finding on Facebook’s social network. Journal of Labor Economics, 35(2), 485-518. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/686225">https://doi.org/10.1086/686225</a>. Smith, S.S. (2016) Job-finding among the poor: Do social ties matter? In D. Brady &amp; L.M. Burton (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the social science of poverty. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
<div class='shareaholic-canvas' data-app='share_buttons' data-title='Not Just What But Who You Know Matters' data-link='https://www.educationnext.org/not-just-what-but-who-you-know-matters-freeland-fisher-excerpt/' data-summary='An Excerpt from Julia Freeland Fisher&#039;s book &quot;Who You Know&quot;' data-app-id='28510232' data-app-id-name='category_below_content'></div>";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:36:"http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/";a:1:{s:10:"commentRss";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:98:"https://www.educationnext.org/not-just-what-but-who-you-know-matters-freeland-fisher-excerpt/feed/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:38:"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/";a:1:{s:8:"comments";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:1:"3";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:20;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:60:"

";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:3:{s:0:"";a:6:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:88:"Accreditation’s Insidious Impact on Higher Education Innovation – by Michael B. Horn";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:90:"https://www.educationnext.org/accreditations-insidious-impact-higher-education-innovation/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Thu, 19 Jul 2018 04:07:15 +0000";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"category";a:19:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:4:"Blog";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:1;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:9:"Editorial";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:2;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"Higher Education";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:3;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"Technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:4;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:13:"Accreditation";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:5;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:19:"Bellevue University";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:6;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:21:"college accreditation";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:7;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:21:"disruptive innovation";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:8;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:9:"higher ed";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:9;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"higher education";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:10;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"innovation";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:11;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:11:"innovations";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:12;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:15:"Michael B. Horn";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:13;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:12:"Michael Horn";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:14;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:14:"online courses";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:15;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:14:"online schools";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:16;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:33:"Southern New Hampshire University";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:17;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:24:"technological innovation";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:18;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:14:"Tiffin College";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49686035";s:7:"attribs";a:1:{s:0:"";a:1:{s:11:"isPermaLink";s:5:"false";}}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:229:"While Washington, D.C. slams accreditors for not holding colleges and universities accountable for their student outcomes, the more insidious failure of accreditation is the stifling effect on innovation at existing institutions.";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:32:"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/";a:1:{s:7:"creator";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:15:"Michael B. Horn";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:40:"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:7047:"<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-49686034" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext-july18-blog-horn-accreditation.jpg" alt="" width="690" />
While <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelhorn/2018/06/14/stealing-a-page-from-disruption-to-transform-accreditation/#347119f95209" target="_blank">Washington, D.C. slams accreditors</a> for not holding colleges and universities accountable for their student outcomes, the more insidious failure of accreditation is the stifling effect on innovation at existing institutions.
Three case studies from <a href="https://www.christenseninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/accreditation_alana_final_final.pdf" target="_blank">a new paper</a> that I coauthored with my colleague Alana Dunagan that was published originally as a chapter in the new book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Accreditation-Edge-Challenging-Assurance-Education/dp/1421425440" target="_blank">Accreditation on the Edge: Challenging Quality Assurance in Higher Education</a> illustrate why.
Tiffin College
In the summer of 2013, the Higher Learning Commission (HLC), one of the United States’s regional accreditors, issued an edict that Tiffin College must shut down its innovative Ivy Bridge program. Ivy Bridge was an autonomous online unit from the rest of Tiffin that it had built in partnership with Altius, an edtech startup that education entrepreneur Paul Freedman—the founder and CEO of the Entangled Group where I am now the chief strategy officer—had founded.
The demand was shocking because just a couple years earlier HLC had praised Ivy Bridge as an important step forward for Tiffin, saying, “The concept of the Ivy Bridge partnership is an excellent strategic initiative.”
Underlying HLC’s new view was that Tiffin had given the autonomous entity too much control.
Bellevue University
Months earlier, <a href="http://www.bellevue.edu/" target="_blank">Bellevue University</a>, a non-profit university in Bellevue, Nebraska, launched a new innovative program called Flexxive, a competency-based, self-paced online program where a degree would cost only $10,000. A glowing <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/03/05/competency-based-education-continues-spread" target="_blank">profile in Inside Higher Ed </a>noted that, “An instructional team of four from Bellevue—including two faculty members, a student coach and a ‘reader’ who monitors and grades work—will help students as they work through course material, ensuring that they’re making progress.”
Bellevue’s accreditor, HLC, initially permitted the program. But just after the Inside Higher Ed piece, the Department of Education weighed in and challenged the program on the grounds of “substantive interaction”—essentially claiming that the contact between students and professors in the Flexxive program was too limited so the courses would not qualify for financial aid.
Given that HLC had said the program was OK, Bellevue expected it to advocate on its behalf. Instead, HLC opened an investigation of its own and took issue with the autonomous team Bellevue had created to develop the program.
Five years later, despite having shuttered the program and provided reams of evidence to the Department of Education refuting its concerns, Bellevue remains under program review, which has stifled its ability to innovate.
Southern New Hampshire University
A year before all the drama at Tiffin and Bellevue, in the northeast, Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU), a non-profit, enjoyed a very different experience. It created a program called College for America (CfA), which, like Flexxive, was a competency-based, self-paced, online program that cost $3,000 a year. Like Tiffin and Bellevue, SNHU used an autonomous entity to create CfA. But unlike the other two, SNHU’s accreditor, the New England Association of Schools &amp; Colleges approved the structure and SNHU’s proposal to create CfA in September 2012.
Accreditation stifles innovation
Why were SNHU’s efforts to build a competency-based program successful, whereas Bellevue’s attempt to build a similar program was ultimately blocked?
Accreditation as it stands currently is inconsistent, both between accreditors and between the same accreditor at different points in time. Standards of accreditation vary between accreditors, but their interpretation varies to a larger degree—even between different accrediting teams looking at the same institution.
This creates uncertainties for institutional leaders and creates untenable risks around innovating for schools with limited resources. Many cannot afford the financial and reputational losses involved in being a Tiffin or a Bellevue.
Institutions that are able to innovate are those blessed by geography—a cooperative, forward-thinking regional accreditor—as well as finances. Innovation can be expensive, especially when it is shut down midstream.
All this points to something I have said many times. Accreditation is too “input driven.”
Institutional accreditors look at an institution’s mission statement, planning practices, governance structure, academic oversight, student policies—all of which are inputs to education, not outcomes of it.
Even standards like “educational effectiveness” only require institutions to study and consider whether the institution is effective. The institution is not held accountable for meeting any specific outcomes.
Even worse, the focus on inputs makes it challenging for institutions to change their business models. It is challenging, if not impossible, to innovate and create a healthier dinner, for example, without changing any of the ingredients. If accreditors have the ability to bar institutions from creating new, autonomous organizational structures with vastly different ingredients, then that will, by definition, inhibit innovation.
— Michael Horn
Michael Horn is a co-founder of and a distinguished fellow at the Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation.
This post originally appeared on <a href="https://www.christenseninstitute.org/blog/accreditations-insidious-impact-on-higher-education-innovation/" target="_blank">ChristensenInstitute.org</a>.
<div class='shareaholic-canvas' data-app='share_buttons' data-title='Accreditation’s Insidious Impact on Higher Education Innovation' data-link='https://www.educationnext.org/accreditations-insidious-impact-higher-education-innovation/' data-summary='While Washington, D.C. slams accreditors for not holding colleges and universities accountable for their student outcomes, the more insidious failure of accreditation is the stifling effect on innovation at existing institutions.' data-app-id='28510232' data-app-id-name='category_below_content'></div>";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:22;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:66:"

";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:3:{s:0:"";a:6:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:103:"In the News: Teacher’s Aide or Surveillance Nightmare? Alexa Hits the Classroom – by Education Next";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:93:"https://www.educationnext.org/news-teachers-aide-surveillance-nightmare-alexa-hits-classroom/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Wed, 27 Jun 2018 13:14:11 +0000";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"category";a:12:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:4:"Blog";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:1;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"Technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:2;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:5:"Alexa";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:3;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:6:"Amazon";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:4;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:15:"Benjamin Herold";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:5;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"digital learning";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:6;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:20:"education technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:7;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:15:"Michael B. Horn";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:8;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:12:"Michael Horn";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:9;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:24:"technology and schooling";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:10;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:27:"technology in the classroom";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:11;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:22:"technology integration";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:36:"http://educationnext.org/?p=49685771";s:7:"attribs";a:1:{s:0:"";a:1:{s:11:"isPermaLink";s:5:"false";}}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:229:"Teachers are starting to use voice-powered devices like Alexa in the classroom, though privacy advocates have raised some concerns. Michael Horn considers some of the larger ways that voice assistants might disrupt the classroom.";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:32:"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/";a:1:{s:7:"creator";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:14:"Education Next";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:40:"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:2469:"At the annual conference of the International Society for Technology in Education, being held in Chicago this week, several shared the ways they are using voice-powered devices like Alexa in the classroom.
<a href="http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/DigitalEducation/2018/06/alexa_in_the_classroom_teachers_surveillance.html" target="_blank"><img class="alignright size-full wp-image-49685769" style="float: right;padding-top: 5px;padding-bottom: 5px;padding-left: 5px" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext-june18-ototn-edweek-amazon-alexa.jpg" alt="" width="400" /></a>As <a href="http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/DigitalEducation/2018/06/alexa_in_the_classroom_teachers_surveillance.html" target="_blank">Benjamin Herold writes</a>:
The internet-enabled devices listen to what users say, send audio recordings to the cloud, translate that information into commands, and respond accordingly—providing users with a personal digital voice assistant such as Amazon&#8217;s Alexa, which teachers are now using to help with everything from setting a classroom timer to leading a group of 3rd graders through a spelling test.
However, Herold notes:
<blockquote>Groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union are raising alarms about privacy.
&#8220;Should students be required to submit themselves to always-on voice-tracking and other third-party surveillance in order to get an education?&#8221; asked ACLU staff technologist Daniel Kahn Gillmor in an interview.</blockquote>
Michael Horn wrote for EdNext about how Alexa might disrupt the classroom in &#8220;<a href="https://www.educationnext.org/hey-alexa-could-voice-activation-help-kids-learn-technology-disrupt-classroom/" target="_blank">Hey Alexa, can you help kids learn more?</a>&#8221;
— Education Next
<div class='shareaholic-canvas' data-app='share_buttons' data-title='In the News: Teacher&#039;s Aide or Surveillance Nightmare? Alexa Hits the Classroom' data-link='https://www.educationnext.org/news-teachers-aide-surveillance-nightmare-alexa-hits-classroom/' data-summary='Teachers are starting to use voice-powered devices like Alexa in the classroom, though privacy advocates have raised some concerns. Michael Horn considers some of the larger ways that voice assistants might disrupt the classroom.' data-app-id='28510232' data-app-id-name='category_below_content'></div>";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:23;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:51:"

";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:3:{s:0:"";a:6:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:153:"EdStat: In 2016, Raising Blended Learners Chose Five “Demonstration Sites” to Receive Grants of up to $500,000 Over Three Years – by Education Next";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:132:"https://www.educationnext.org/edstat-2016-raising-blended-learners-chose-five-demonstration-sites-receive-grants-500000-three-years/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Wed, 06 Jun 2018 09:00:40 +0000";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"category";a:7:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:4:"Blog";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:1;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:6:"EdStat";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:2;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:21:"Teachers and Teaching";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:3;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"Technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:4;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"blended learning";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:5;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:21:"Personalized Learning";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:6;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:27:"technology in the classroom";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:36:"http://educationnext.org/?p=49685375";s:7:"attribs";a:1:{s:0:"";a:1:{s:11:"isPermaLink";s:5:"false";}}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:156:"These sites had mixed to modest gains in student achievement, though educators report greater student ownership of learning and fewer disciplinary problems.";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:32:"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/";a:1:{s:7:"creator";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:14:"Education Next";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:40:"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:2104:"<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-49685374" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext-jun1806-edstat-RBL5000003years.jpg" alt="" width="690" />
In an effort to scale up personalized learning in the state of Texas, Raising Blended Learners (RBL) has matched grants with extensive tailored support. RBL hosted in-depth workshops that guided 74 teams from districts to create blended learning plans. Ultimately, 10 school systems were selected to refine their plans before five winning “demonstration sites” were chosen in 2016 for grants of up to <a href="https://www.educationnext.org/kickstarters-personalized-learning-local-funds-promote-innovation/" target="_blank">$500,000 over three years</a>.
The five demonstration sites had <a href="https://www.educationnext.org/kickstarters-personalized-learning-local-funds-promote-innovation/" target="_blank">mixed or modest gains</a> in student achievement and engagement, according to a report on the first year of RBL written by FSG. However, educators report greater student ownership of learning, more peer collaboration between students, deeper teacher knowledge of student needs, and fewer disciplinary problems.
To learn more about regional personalized learning funds, read Julie Landry Petersen’s “<a href="https://www.educationnext.org/kickstarters-personalized-learning-local-funds-promote-innovation/" target="_blank">Kickstarters for Personalized Learning</a>” on EdNext.org.
—Education Next
<div class='shareaholic-canvas' data-app='share_buttons' data-title='EdStat: In 2016, Raising Blended Learners Chose Five “Demonstration Sites” to Receive Grants of up to $500,000 Over Three Years' data-link='https://www.educationnext.org/edstat-2016-raising-blended-learners-chose-five-demonstration-sites-receive-grants-500000-three-years/' data-summary='These sites had mixed to modest gains in student achievement, though educators report greater student ownership of learning and fewer disciplinary problems.' data-app-id='28510232' data-app-id-name='category_below_content'></div>";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:24;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:51:"

";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:3:{s:0:"";a:6:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:134:"EdStat: The Next Generation Learning Challenges Have Allocated More than $25 Million across Seven Regional Funds – by Education Next";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:122:"https://www.educationnext.org/edstat-next-generation-learning-challenges-allocated-25-million-across-seven-regional-funds/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Mon, 04 Jun 2018 09:00:18 +0000";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"category";a:7:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:4:"Blog";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:1;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:6:"EdStat";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:2;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"Technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:3;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"blended learning";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:4;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:35:"Next Generation Learning Challenges";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:5;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:4:"nglc";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:6;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:21:"Personalized Learning";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:36:"http://educationnext.org/?p=49685315";s:7:"attribs";a:1:{s:0:"";a:1:{s:11:"isPermaLink";s:5:"false";}}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:85:"But has NGLC funding expanded the adoption of personalized learning in those regions?";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:32:"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/";a:1:{s:7:"creator";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:14:"Education Next";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:40:"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:1921:"<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-49685314" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext-jun1804-edstat-NGLC25mil.jpg" alt="" width="690" />
In the last five years, major philanthropic foundations have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to support personalized and blended learning. The Next Generation Learning Challenges (NGLC), for example, have allocated <a href="https://www.educationnext.org/kickstarters-personalized-learning-local-funds-promote-innovation/" target="_blank">more than $25 million</a> across seven regional funds in Washington, D.C.; New Orleans; Chicago; Oakland; Colorado; Massachusetts; and a six-state consortium in New England that includes Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Massachusetts. The hope is that each region will launch between three and six “proof point” schools demonstrating “next-generation” learning—and eventually create a critical mass of forward-thinking schools.
So, has the funding worked? It’s difficult to assess, but the NGLC funds do seem to have had an impact on the national profile of personalized learning. To learn more about regional personalized learning funds, check out “<a href="https://www.educationnext.org/kickstarters-personalized-learning-local-funds-promote-innovation/" target="_blank">Kickstarters for Personalized Learning</a>” by Julie Landry Petersen.
—Education Next
<div class='shareaholic-canvas' data-app='share_buttons' data-title='EdStat: The Next Generation Learning Challenges Have Allocated More than $25 Million across Seven Regional Funds' data-link='https://www.educationnext.org/edstat-next-generation-learning-challenges-allocated-25-million-across-seven-regional-funds/' data-summary='But has NGLC funding expanded the adoption of personalized learning in those regions?' data-app-id='28510232' data-app-id-name='category_below_content'></div>";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:25;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:63:"

";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:3:{s:0:"";a:6:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:67:"Kickstarters for Personalized Learning – by Julie Landry Petersen";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:96:"https://www.educationnext.org/kickstarters-personalized-learning-local-funds-promote-innovation/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Wed, 30 May 2018 04:50:21 +0000";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"category";a:11:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"Technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:1;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:8:"Web-Only";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:2;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"innovation";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:3;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:11:"innovations";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:4;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:21:"Julie Landry Petersen";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:5;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:14:"Julie Petersen";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:6;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:15:"personalization";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:7;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:21:"Personalized Learning";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:8;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"personalized learning framework";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:9;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:27:"personalized learning model";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:10;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:30:"personalized learning platform";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:36:"http://educationnext.org/?p=49685153";s:7:"attribs";a:1:{s:0:"";a:1:{s:11:"isPermaLink";s:5:"false";}}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:52:"Local funds promote innovation—but for how long?
";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:32:"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/";a:1:{s:7:"creator";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:21:"Julie Landry Petersen";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:40:"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:27039:"<div id="attachment_49685151" style="width: 700px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img class="size-full wp-image-49685151" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext-may18-webonly-petersen-img02.jpg" alt="" width="690" />At Cesar E. Chávez Multicultural Academic Center, a grantee of the NGLC Regional Fund for Breakthrough Schools in Chicago, students are engaged in the learning process through classroom-wide collaborative exercises.</div>
In the last five years, major philanthropic foundations have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to support “personalized” and “blended” learning, a set of classroom practices in which students explore their interests at their own pace, guided by responsive teachers and technological tools. From Gates and Arnold to Carnegie and Dell, leading funders have embraced the underlying beliefs that schooling ought to be reinvented so it can better support the individual needs of every student, and that scaling such instruction will require the right technology at a reasonable cost.
But as with any educational innovation, personalized and blended learning will live or die by the schools and teachers that implement them. And a sustainable, widespread change in pedagogy and practice will take a groundswell of local enthusiasm.
Enter regional personalized learning funds, which connect foundations and local grantmakers to schools and their leaders—and which have launched or expanded most personalized and blended models thus far. Is this a smart strategy to scale personalized learning? What lessons can we take from their efforts?
“Where we’ve seen innovation really take off is where there’s been a well-developed ecosystem of folks who want to innovate and people who want to support them,” reflected Alex Hernandez of Charter School Growth Fund. “Unless there’s a community of people excited about a reform, change just turns into a mandate, and mandates never work out.”
An Early Interest in Student-Centered Learning
Many foundations were drawn into the world of personalized and blended learning through their support of pioneering charter school chains Rocketship Education and Summit Public Schools. (Disclosure: I have worked with Rocketship, Summit, and several other organizations mentioned below as a freelance writer.) But the benefits of these approaches were not immediately clear, and the research base remains thin. For example, a study focusing on five early-adopter school systems in California and Louisiana during the 2011–12 school year found modest learning gains but “could not isolate the impacts of the blended learning models from other aspects of the schools that might also affect learning, such as differences in curriculum, teacher quality, and the academic culture.”
Still, donors’ excitement about personalized learning’s potential has led them to invest over the last few years, looking for ways to accelerate innovation where it is already underway and to spread personalized practices more widely. These twin opportunities to innovate were made clear in a 2013 Philanthropy Roundtable guidebook: it raved about the possibilities of “intelligent software, flexibly employed by wise educators, pushed by savvy philanthropists and a demanding public” while also lamenting that there were too few exciting models and too little uptake across districts and states.
Foundations recruited—or, in some cases, started—regional organizations that could help them increase the number of interesting personalized learning models and the number of schools and teachers using those models, and make communities and school systems more receptive to change. Notable examples include: the Silicon Schools Fund in San Francisco and the surrounding Bay Area; the Regional Funds for Breakthrough Schools initiative by the Next Generation Learning Challenge (NGLC), which has led efforts in seven regions including Chicago, Washington, D.C., and New Orleans; and the Raising Blended Learners (RBL) initiative in five Texas cities organized by Raise Your Hand Texas. These initiatives offer not only funding to launch or retool a district or charter school, but also management guidance, technical assistance, convenings, and site visits. The hope is that regional pockets of funding and activity will create local ecosystems of innovation that adopt personalized learning.
But what, so far, has been the impact of these efforts?
On the surface, it appears they have at least advanced the spread of personalized learning: several hundred public schools and thousands of students nationwide now use the approach at least some of the time, and a good portion of these programs trace their development to a regional personalized learning initiative. Students in Washington, D.C., rural Cisco, Texas, and Oakland, California, for example, are now experiencing personalized or blended instruction, which may not have happened without regional funding and support.
However, although the number of schools and students linked to personalized learning in these regions has increased, it is difficult to determine whether this uptake in usage—or the boldness of the models being used—was caused by the funding networks. Many funders backed existing players and models rather than new ideas, and the resulting programs vary greatly in their designs and outcomes.
In addition, there are few clear signs that regional personalized learning funds have led to breakthrough innovations or systemic changes like stronger policies or better education-technology products. As for sustainability, only two have raised follow-on philanthropic capital. And most critically, the impact on student learning is not yet known—although there are some promising indicators.
To be fair, systemic change would take more than a few years, and ongoing philanthropic investment is never the point. But these efforts have been around long enough to provide some early lessons about whether such regional initiatives foster innovation, adoption, or improvement. Below, I look at three leaders in the space to better understand their approach and potential to affect student achievement.
Silicon Schools
California is a frequent education bellwether, so it’s no surprise that the nation’s first regional personalized learning fund was the Silicon Schools Fund in the San Francisco Bay Area. Several major foundations, led by the Fisher Fund, established the new firm in 2012. At the time, it sought to use its first $25 million to establish “up to twenty-five schools that combine high-quality instruction with cutting-edge technology to provide each student with a personalized learning experience.” Thanks to investor enthusiasm, Silicon Schools supported 31 schools through its first fund, six more than originally anticipated. In late 2015, it quickly raised a second $40 million to create another 40 schools.
The fund provides sizeable grants that average about $600,000 and are designed to allow aspiring school founders to quit their jobs and dedicate themselves full-time to the design and launch of a new school for at least a year before it opens. The chief priority is to create high-performing new schools throughout northern and central California that use student-centered practices to drive performance, often employing technology in order to do so within the state’s low per-pupil funding amounts.
The model of each school can vary—the fund invests in a wide range of designs and selects its grantees with an eye to whether they will be able to deliver on their plan. “We want to develop expertise and judgment, not a concrete or limited vision for what personalized or blended learning is,” said Founder and Chief Executive Officer Brian Greenberg, a former principal and chief academic officer at Envision Education in Oakland.
To make sure the schools they fund are as effective as possible, Greenberg and his team give school leaders plenty of constructive feedback and connect them with one another and with others in the field. Throughout the year before their school opens, grantees come together several times for a “design review,” where they get feedback from organizational leaders and other schools and experts, and provide feedback to other schools. The organization also brings aspiring school leaders together for dinners where they can get to know one another better, so they can call upon each other for support.
Silicon Schools operates more like a venture capital firm that backs strong teams rather than a foundation that issues grants in response to applications, and its backers say this has helped them kick-start high-quality schools that are attracting local and national dollars and attention. “Brian is the best at finding, nurturing and developing talented leaders in the personalized learning space,” says Luis de la Fuente, former managing director of The Broad Foundation, which invested in Silicon Schools’ first fund.
<a href="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext-may18-webonly-petersen-fig01.jpg" target="_blank"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-49685145" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext-may18-webonly-petersen-fig01-small.jpg" alt="" width="690" /></a>
Evidence of Impact
The performance of the schools in Silicon Schools’ portfolio consistently outpaces both state and local district performance on annual tests, as well as the average performance at California charter schools (see Figure 1). A 2017 report by the organization detailing its first five years found dramatic gains for students who began the school year in the bottom quartile of performance statewide, and for Latino and economically disadvantaged students. While a low-income student in California is 42 points below proficiency on state assessments on average, students attending schools backed by Silicon Schools score 15 points above proficiency on average. Critically, more than two-thirds of students attending schools backed by the fund are from low-income families.
Are those strong results caused by or merely correlated with the fund’s support? The answer is unclear. It is also unclear whether the schools’ locations and proximity to one another have meaningfully contributed to their strong performance. The overall culture of entrepreneurship and innovation makes Northern California fertile ground for personalized learning; leading organizations like Rocketship and Summit are headquartered in the Bay Area, which is also home to interested funders like the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. Could Silicon Schools exist and be successful elsewhere?
Greenberg argues that Silicon Schools’ early success is due to the strength and structure of its efforts. His team is able to select the most promising applications because of the pattern recognition they’re developing across multiple funds and then hold grantees accountable for strong gains by forming deep, supportive relationships. He also says this concentration of successful efforts makes personalized learning feel manageable for other local schools. “Personalized learning is now acceptable here because of this saturation of proof points,” he said. The question is whether those proof points can lay meaningful groundwork for change elsewhere.
Next Generation Learning Challenges Funds
Unlike Silicon Schools’ single-region focus, the seven regional funds supported by the Next Generation Learning Challenges (NGLC), part of EDUCAUSE, span the United States. They were launched after five national waves of technology-inspired NGLC grant challenges, which disbursed more than $20 million and supported the launch or redesign of 50 schools, including five of the 10 winners of the competitive XQ: The Super School Project grants for reinventing high school (“Will the XQ ‘Super Schools’ Live Up to Their Name?” features, Spring 2017).
While the winning NGLC designs were inspiring, the overall number of qualified applications was low. In response, NGLC and the program’s primary funder, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, began looking for ways to boost the number and diversity of school designs and help scale personalized learning, said NGLC Director Andrew Calkins. They launched the seven funds that make up the Regional Funds for Breakthrough Schools initiative between 2013 and 2016, with additional support from The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation and the Michael and Susan Dell Foundation. Each Regional Fund is a partnership between NGLC and a local entity.
NGLC has allocated more than $25 million across the seven funds, with the goal of each region launching between three and six “proof point” schools that could demonstrate “next-generation” learning, including expanded definitions of student success. The intent is not only to reach more new school leaders and foster more innovative school designs, but also to create a critical mass of these forward-thinking schools and to expand the adoption of personalized learning in those regions. The local Breakthrough Schools funds vary tremendously in structure, strategy, team expertise, funding provided, and support offered.
The NGLC supports a mix of school redesign and new school design, both nationally and regionally, and the Regional Funds have 11 new schools among the 65 directly funded grantees (see Figure 2). Another 169 school sites have received some financial or technical support. The funds target seven regions: Washington, D.C.; New Orleans; Chicago; Oakland; Colorado; Massachusetts; and a six-state consortium in New England that includes Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Massachusetts.
<a href="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext-may18-webonly-petersen-fig02.jpg" target="_blank"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-49685147" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext-may18-webonly-petersen-fig02-small.jpg" alt="" width="690" /></a>
The support provided to grantees varies. Two of the funds, those targeting New England and Colorado, focus on connecting competency-based state policy to local school practice. Five funds offer grants and other assistance to school leaders, typically in amounts smaller than those provided by Silicon Schools, ranging from as little as $10,000 in planning capital in Massachusetts to $300,000 for implementation in New Orleans. Programmatic support may include design workshops, site visits, coaching, and teacher professional development.
By giving grant capital to local players, the regional funds expand innovation activity overall, Calkins said. For example, in Washington, D.C., just three schools had submitted applications across the five waves of NGLC national challenge grants. By contrast, the first two rounds of Breakthrough Schools grant competitions, which were run by local nonprofit CityBridge Education, attracted 42 applications, 13 of which were funded and 10 of which are still pursuing personalized learning.
“What started in some ways as philanthropy working to spur interest has really become a field driven by educators coming out of their classrooms wanting to work collaboratively to spread this innovation,” says Helayne Jones, formerly of the Gates Foundation. “We feel like NGLC has been a really strong partner, and they’re a key player in the marketplace with or without the foundation.”
Evidence of Impact
In terms of the funded schools’ impacts to date, none have yet risen to the hoped-for level of national “proof points.” The Gates Foundation has not commissioned any formal evaluation of the regional Breakthrough Schools funds, and none of the regional funds’ schools appear in a RAND report on the impact of personalized learning strategies (which examined schools supported by earlier rounds of national NGLC funding). Just one of the regional funds has published formal data about the impact of their investments on students or teachers: an evaluation of the seven schools that have launched in Oakland shows mixed achievement and growth, although none attained the state’s “minimum goals for school quality across all indicators and subpopulations.”
School and fund leaders say there are other initial indications of success, though. In Washington, D.C., some schools report growth in student learning, although in many cases it’s not yet showing up on end-of-year state assessments, said Caroline Hill of CityBridge Education. The funds’ Chicago partner, LEAP Innovations, has seen decreased disciplinary referrals at many city schools and increased achievement for at least one school, Joseph Lovett Elementary: student performance increased to the 98th percentile in both math and reading growth in 2015–2016, up from the 34th and 73rd percentiles, respectively, in the 2012–2013 school year. The University of Wisconsin Center for Education Research is codifying the school models of the second cohort of LEAP grantees and analyzing their impact on students and teachers.
The regional funds have also stirred up interest in personalized learning, Calkins noted. For example, Chicago Public Schools’ “Elevate,” a new personalized-learning redesign program, was patterned after a grant competition led by LEAP and has been supported by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. As a result, more than 35 Chicago schools will complete a semester of professional development and piloting before they create school-wide “blueprints” for transformation.
“It’s a challenging thing to conduct measurement in the relative short term in schools undergoing these kinds of changes,” Calkins said. “Most of the changes aren’t designed explicitly and solely to lift student performance on state tests, which have become the de facto measuring stick (inaccurately and unfairly) for everyone’s understanding of ‘how good a school is.’”
Raising Blended Learners
When public education research and policy organization Raise Your Hand Texas first set out to scale up blended learning in a handful of Texas districts in 2015, it didn’t foresee the level of interest it would generate—or the level of support those systems would need. Raising Blended Learners (RBL), the resulting program, has not only provided significant grants to support school redesigns, but also matched those grants with extensive tailored support.
With funding from Educate Texas, the Meadows Foundation, and the Dell Foundation, RBL signaled early on that it would do things differently. Rather than publish a simple grant application, it hosted in-depth workshops that guided 74 teams from districts across the state to create blended learning plans. Eventually, with coaching from RBL advisors and feedback from outside experts, 67 district teams submitted plans.
Ultimately, 10 school systems were selected to refine their plans before five winning “demonstration sites” were chosen in 2016 for grants of up to $500,000 over three years. The sites are in three distinct areas of Texas: to the north, near Dallas–Fort Worth (the Birdville and Cisco districts), to the east, in and around Houston (KIPP Houston and Pasadena Independent School District), and to the south, on the Gulf Coast near the Mexico border (Point Isabel Independent School District).
Another 15 schools across the state received substantial in-kind technical assistance as “pilot sites.” Raise Your Hand Texas has engaged eight direct support providers to help these districts address challenges related to technology, professional development, pilot implementation, and student-experience design. In all, the organization has spent roughly the same amount on hands-on technical support as on the demonstration site grants.
“The support has been every bit as important as the capital, because it’s coached people to change hearts and minds,” said Matt Wilka of FSG, a consultancy that has studied RBL’s work. “You can fund a position or devices, but what’s left is the people who are leading this stuff.”
Evidence of Impact
All five “demonstration sites” are continuing to implement personalized learning in their second year of the initiative. Some have increased the number of classrooms, grade levels, or school sites they’re addressing, while others have slowed the pace of planned expansion while they work through challenges.
As for the 15 original “pilot sites,” nine are expanding their personalized learning work, two are continuing but not expanding, and four have discontinued their pilots entirely. This could be seen as a disappointment, or as something more positive: allowing RBL and its technical support providers to focus on promising sites rather than floundering efforts. The five demonstration sites had mixed or modest gains in student achievement and engagement, according to a report on the first year of RBL written by FSG. However, educators report greater student ownership of learning, more peer collaboration between students, deeper teacher knowledge of student needs, and fewer disciplinary problems. 
The numbers may not demonstrate the rapid growth of personalized learning or a massive acceleration of student learning in Texas. But what’s most promising about RBL may be the steady, consistent, and in-depth technical assistance it has provided to its school sites. This approach is expensive but may bode well for the sustainability of these efforts in the pilot and demonstration sites. In addition, over time, other personalized learning schools and systems may benefit from RBL’s concentrated investment in technical-assistance providers. However, it’s still unclear whether this expertise will be more valuable than the looser and less expensive information-sharing facilitated by Silicon Schools and NGLC.
<div id="attachment_49685150" style="width: 700px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img class="size-full wp-image-49685150" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext-may18-webonly-petersen-img01.jpg" alt="" width="690" />The nation’s first regional personalized learning fund was the Silicon Schools Fund, which has supported schools like Caliber Schools in providing students with an engaging, personalized education.</div>
Taking Stock
Are regional funds an effective way to scale personalized learning? Just four years in, it is too soon to tell. We know these efforts have helped found new schools and influenced the operations of dozens more, including in regions that may not have otherwise engaged at this level. Some school and local fund leaders claim they are changing instruction and engaging students in ways that will translate into stronger student achievement over time. But there is almost no empirical evidence to confirm that assertion—at least, not yet.
Still, these three very different initiatives raise important questions for how foundations and other leaders might encourage the development of personalized learning nationwide. Must organizations follow a whole-school approach, or are there other ways to promote personalized learning?
Silicon Schools acts more as a school developer than a personalized learning evangelist, and its potential impact is more related to prioritizing leadership teams and building new organizations than to persuading existing school systems to adopt personalized learning. However, it’s difficult to replicate Silicon Schools in other cities because of the capital and expertise required to surface and guide strong, lasting school organizations—not to mention a fertile field of entrepreneurs ready to act.
Meanwhile, the NGLC regional funds are so disparate that it’s difficult to assess their worth or replicability. But they do seem to have had an impact on the national profile of personalized learning, as well as on the breadth of experimentation within regions and the connections between them. Moving forward, similar efforts might focus on encouraging teachers to try personalized learning, growing the national ecosystem of technical-assistance providers, and having teachers and leaders visit and learn from exemplars in their own regions and throughout the U.S.
Finally, RBL has dedicated significant resources to deep, tailored, hands-on engagement and building the capacity of technical-assistance providers who can help Texas school systems and others. Like Silicon Schools, theirs is a fairly expensive model, but it may be possible to replicate in other regions because of the expertise that’s been developed by the network of support providers on the ground—as long as Texas schools begin to show results worth replicating.
No matter the approach, there’s a question of which funds will be available to support it. While two of the NGLC regional funds have raised follow-on funding, none of the national foundations that supported those funds originally have committed additional capital to the intermediaries or their school sub-grantees. The newest iteration of the Gates Foundation’s investment strategy doesn’t even mention personalized learning. (However, Gates joined the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative last year in underwriting a $12 million national “learning community” for seven personalized learning organizations.) And the Broad Foundation appears to be distancing itself from personalized learning: while a 2013 press release touted $23 million in personalized learning investments, its current public data lists just $8.7 million, representing 1 percent of giving since 1999.
Foundation officials say they’re open to other approaches to scaling personalized learning, including those that are less far-reaching and expensive. “Our hypothesis was that personalized learning had to be adopted as whole-school redesign,” said Jill Hawley, senior program officer for K–12 education at the Gates Foundation. However, “there are many on-ramps to creating personalized environments for students, and whole-school is not the only, nor even always the best, way to start.”
Julie Landry Petersen is a writer specializing in public education and former communications director at the nonprofit NewSchools Venture Fund.
<div class='shareaholic-canvas' data-app='share_buttons' data-title='Kickstarters for Personalized Learning' data-link='https://www.educationnext.org/kickstarters-personalized-learning-local-funds-promote-innovation/' data-summary='Local funds promote innovation—but for how long?' data-app-id='28510232' data-app-id-name='category_below_content'></div>";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:26;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:75:"

";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:3:{s:0:"";a:6:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:168:"EdStat: According to the 2017 EdNext Poll, 69 Percent of Respondents Support the Idea of Schools Providing Students with Laptops for Classroom Use – by Education Next";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:149:"https://www.educationnext.org/edstat-according-2017-ednext-poll-69-percent-respondents-support-idea-schools-providing-students-laptops-classroom-use/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Thu, 10 May 2018 09:00:58 +0000";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"category";a:15:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:4:"Blog";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:1;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:6:"EdStat";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:2;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:19:"Education Next Poll";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:3;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:14:"Inside Schools";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:4;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"Technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:5;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"2017 EdNext poll";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:6;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:12:"ed next poll";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:7;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:11:"EdNext poll";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:8;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:19:"Education Next poll";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:9;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:20:"education technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:10;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:22:"educational technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:11;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:6:"laptop";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:12;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:7:"laptops";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:13;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:24:"technology and schooling";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:14;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:27:"technology in the classroom";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:36:"http://educationnext.org/?p=49684846";s:7:"attribs";a:1:{s:0:"";a:1:{s:11:"isPermaLink";s:5:"false";}}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:65:"Approval is higher among parents and still higher among teachers.";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:32:"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/";a:1:{s:7:"creator";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:14:"Education Next";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:40:"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:2115:"<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-49684845" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext-may1810-edstat-69percentsupportlaptops.jpg" alt="" width="690" />
The use of technology in schools continues to advance, and significant opposition to it has receded. According to our 2017 Poll, <a href="https://www.educationnext.org/2017-ednext-poll-school-reform-public-opinion-school-choice-common-core-higher-ed/#_technology" target="_blank">69 percent of respondents</a> support the idea of schools in their community providing students with laptop computers for classroom use. Approval is higher among parents, at 77 percent, and even higher among teachers, at 83 percent. Respondents show less support for the use of smartphones in classrooms, however, with just 26 percent of the public supporting students using their own smartphones in the classroom for educational purposes. Learn more by reading <a href="https://www.educationnext.org/2017-ednext-poll-school-reform-public-opinion-school-choice-common-core-higher-ed/" target="_blank">our full article</a> on the 2017 EdNext Poll, or check out <a href="https://www.educationnext.org/2017-ednext-poll-interactive/" target="_blank">our interactive tool</a> to compare responses by population subgroup. To see how laptop use affects learning in higher education settings, read “<a href="https://www.educationnext.org/should-professors-ban-laptops-classroom-computer-use-affects-student-learning-study/" target="_blank">Should Professors Ban Laptops?</a>” from our Fall 2017 issue.
—Education Next
<div class='shareaholic-canvas' data-app='share_buttons' data-title='EdStat: According to the 2017 EdNext Poll, 69 Percent of Respondents Support the Idea of Schools Providing Students with Laptops for Classroom Use' data-link='https://www.educationnext.org/edstat-according-2017-ednext-poll-69-percent-respondents-support-idea-schools-providing-students-laptops-classroom-use/' data-summary='Approval is higher among parents and still higher among teachers.' data-app-id='28510232' data-app-id-name='category_below_content'></div>";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:27;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:60:"

";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:3:{s:0:"";a:6:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:137:"EdStat: 1,700 Students Begin a Computer-Science Master’s Degree Through Georgia Tech’s Online Program Each Year – by Education Next";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:123:"https://www.educationnext.org/edstat-1700-students-begin-computer-science-masters-degree-georgia-techs-online-program-year/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Fri, 30 Mar 2018 09:00:34 +0000";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"category";a:10:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:4:"Blog";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:1;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:6:"EdStat";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:2;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"Higher Education";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:3;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"Technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:4;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"computer science";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:5;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:12:"Georgia Tech";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:6;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"higher education";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:7;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:13:"online course";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:8;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:14:"online courses";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:9;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:15:"online learning";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:36:"http://educationnext.org/?p=49684018";s:7:"attribs";a:1:{s:0:"";a:1:{s:11:"isPermaLink";s:5:"false";}}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:136:"Georgia Tech’s online program is the largest computer-science master’s degree program in the United States—and possibly the world.";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:32:"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/";a:1:{s:7:"creator";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:14:"Education Next";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:40:"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:2247:"<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-49684017" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext-mar1830-edstat-1700onlinestudents.jpg" alt="" width="690" />
The authors of <a href="https://www.educationnext.org/elite-grad-school-degree-goes-online-georgia-tech-virtual-masters-increase-access-education/" target="_blank">a recent study on Georgia Tech’s online computer-science master’s degree</a>, which will be published in the forthcoming Summer 2018 issue of Education Next, saw significant demand for the first low-cost online degree offered by a highly ranked institution, primarily from students who would not otherwise pursue a master’s degree. Georgia Tech’s online program attracts over 3,400 applicants annually, about twice as many as its in-person equivalent. Some 61 percent of applicants are admitted, almost five times the 13 percent admission rate for the in-person program, and 80 percent of those admitted enroll. As a result, each year nearly 1,700 students begin a computer-science master’s degree through Georgia Tech’s online program, making it the largest computer-science master’s degree program in the United States—and possibly the world. Learn more about the study in “<a href="https://www.educationnext.org/elite-grad-school-degree-goes-online-georgia-tech-virtual-masters-increase-access-education/" target="_blank">An Elite Grad-School Degree Goes Online</a>” or listen to author Joshua Goodman discuss his findings on <a href="https://www.educationnext.org/education-exchange-masters-degree-from-a-top-university-at-a-fraction-of-cost-goodman/" target="_blank">the Education Exchange podcast</a>.
—Education Next
<div class='shareaholic-canvas' data-app='share_buttons' data-title='EdStat: 1,700 Students Begin a Computer-Science Master’s Degree Through Georgia Tech’s Online Program Each Year' data-link='https://www.educationnext.org/edstat-1700-students-begin-computer-science-masters-degree-georgia-techs-online-program-year/' data-summary='Georgia Tech’s online program is the largest computer-science master’s degree program in the United States—and possibly the world.' data-app-id='28510232' data-app-id-name='category_below_content'></div>";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:28;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:54:"

";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:3:{s:0:"";a:6:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:104:"In 2015, 14 Percent of U.S. College Students Were Enrolled in Online-Only Programs – by Education Next";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:92:"https://www.educationnext.org/2015-14-percent-u-s-college-students-enrolled-online-programs/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Tue, 27 Mar 2018 09:00:12 +0000";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"category";a:8:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:4:"Blog";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:1;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:6:"EdStat";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:2;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"Technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:3;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"computer science";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:4;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:12:"Georgia Tech";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:5;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"higher education";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:6;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:13:"online course";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:7;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:14:"online courses";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:36:"http://educationnext.org/?p=49683962";s:7:"attribs";a:1:{s:0:"";a:1:{s:11:"isPermaLink";s:5:"false";}}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:174:"Who takes online classes? Does online education simply substitute for in-person education or does it serve students who would not otherwise enroll in an educational program? ";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:32:"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/";a:1:{s:7:"creator";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:14:"Education Next";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:40:"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:2414:"<img src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext-mar1827-edstat-14percentonlinecourses.jpg" alt="" width="690" />
In 2015, 14 percent of U.S. college students were enrolled in online-only programs. This raises a question: who takes online classes? Does online education simply substitute for in-person education, or does it serve students who would not otherwise enroll in an educational program?
<a href="https://www.educationnext.org/elite-grad-school-degree-goes-online-georgia-tech-virtual-masters-increase-access-education/" target="_blank">A study of Georgia Tech’s online computer-science master’s degree</a> by Joshua Goodman, Julia Melkers, and Amanda Pallais, which will be published in the forthcoming Summer 2018 issue of Education Next, finds the first rigorous evidence that an online degree program can increase educational attainment. The authors see significant demand for the first low-cost online degree offered by a highly ranked institution, primarily from students who would not otherwise pursue a master’s degree. Further, unlike the younger, predominantly international applicants to the in-person equivalent at Georgia Tech, applicants to the online program were largely mid-career Americans. Taken together, this implies that the higher-education market had previously been failing to meet demand for a program like that of Georgia Tech. Learn more about the study in “<a href="https://www.educationnext.org/elite-grad-school-degree-goes-online-georgia-tech-virtual-masters-increase-access-education/" target="_blank">An Elite Grad-School Degree Goes Online</a>” or listen to author Joshua Goodman discuss his findings on <a href="https://www.educationnext.org/education-exchange-masters-degree-from-a-top-university-at-a-fraction-of-cost-goodman/" target="_blank">the Education Exchange podcast</a>.
—Education Next
<div class='shareaholic-canvas' data-app='share_buttons' data-title='In 2015, 14 Percent of U.S. College Students Were Enrolled in Online-Only Programs' data-link='https://www.educationnext.org/2015-14-percent-u-s-college-students-enrolled-online-programs/' data-summary='Who takes online classes? Does online education simply substitute for in-person education or does it serve students who would not otherwise enroll in an educational program?' data-app-id='28510232' data-app-id-name='category_below_content'></div>";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:29;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:81:"

";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:3:{s:0:"";a:6:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:92:"In the News: I’d Be an ‘A’ Student if I Could Just Read My Notes – by Education Next";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:62:"https://www.educationnext.org/news-id-student-just-read-notes/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Thu, 22 Mar 2018 04:03:23 +0000";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"category";a:17:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:4:"Blog";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:1;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"Higher Education";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:2;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"Technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:3;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:9:"computers";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:4;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:20:"education technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:5;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:22:"educational technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:6;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"higher education";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:7;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:7:"laptops";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:8;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:20:"Major Kyle Greenberg";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:9;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:23:"Major Michael S. Walker";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:10;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:14:"Martin R. West";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:11;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:11:"Martin West";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:12;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"Marty West";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:13;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:18:"Morgan S. Polikoff";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:14;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:11:"Nora Gordon";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:15;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:18:"Susan Payne Carter";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:16;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:19:"Wall Street Journal";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:36:"http://educationnext.org/?p=49683721";s:7:"attribs";a:1:{s:0:"";a:1:{s:11:"isPermaLink";s:5:"false";}}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:126:"When college professors ban laptops, students complain about hand cramps and an inability to read their own handwritten notes.";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:32:"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/";a:1:{s:7:"creator";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:14:"Education Next";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:40:"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:2275:"<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/id-be-an-a-student-if-i-could-just-read-my-notes-1520865531?mod=itp&amp;mod=djemITP_h" target="_blank"><img class="alignright size-full wp-image-49683716" style="float: right;padding-top: 5px;padding-bottom: 5px;padding-left: 5px" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext-mar18-ototn-wsj-laptops.jpg" alt="" width="400" /></a>In the <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/id-be-an-a-student-if-i-could-just-read-my-notes-1520865531?mod=itp&amp;mod=djemITP_h" target="_blank">Wall Street Journal</a>, Melissa Korn writes about some effects of college professors banning laptop use in class: students complaining about hand cramps and an inability to read their own handwritten notes.
<blockquote>As professors take a stand against computers in their classrooms, students who grew up more familiar with keyboards than cursive are struggling to adjust. They are recording classes on cellphones, turning to friends with better penmanship and petitioning schools for a softer line.</blockquote>
In &#8220;<a href="https://www.educationnext.org/should-professors-ban-laptops-classroom-computer-use-affects-student-learning-study/" target="_blank">Should Professors Ban Laptops?</a>,&#8221; a research piece from the Fall 2017 issue of EdNext, Susan Payne Carter, Kyle Greenberg and Michael S. Walker describe the results of their study which found that allowing any computer usage in the classroom reduces students’ average final-exam performance.
In &#8220;<a href="https://www.educationnext.org/laptops-classroom-open-closed-case/" target="_blank">Laptops in the Classroom: An Open and Closed Cas</a>e,&#8221; Marty West, Nora Gordon and Morgan Polikoff discuss their own policies toward laptop use in the classroom.
— Education Next
<div class='shareaholic-canvas' data-app='share_buttons' data-title='In the News: I’d Be an ‘A’ Student if I Could Just Read My Notes' data-link='https://www.educationnext.org/news-id-student-just-read-notes/' data-summary='When college professors ban laptops, students complain about hand cramps and an inability to read their own handwritten notes.' data-app-id='28510232' data-app-id-name='category_below_content'></div>";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:30;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:90:"

";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:5:{s:0:"";a:7:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:95:"EdNext Podcast: Could Voice-Activated Technology Transform the Classroom? – by Education Next";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:96:"https://www.educationnext.org/ednext-podcast-voice-activated-technology-transform-the-classroom/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"comments";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:105:"https://www.educationnext.org/ednext-podcast-voice-activated-technology-transform-the-classroom/#comments";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Wed, 21 Mar 2018 04:15:07 +0000";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"category";a:17:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:14:"EdNext Podcast";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:1;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"Multimedia";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:2;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:7:"Podcast";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:3;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"Technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:4;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"blended learning";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:5;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"digital learning";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:6;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:22:"Education Next Podcast";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:7;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:20:"education technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:8;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:22:"educational technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:9;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:14:"Martin R. West";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:10;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:11:"Martin West";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:11;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"Marty West";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:12;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:15:"Michael B. Horn";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:13;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:8:"Podcasts";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:14;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:24:"technology and schooling";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:15;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:27:"technology in the classroom";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:16;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:22:"technology integration";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:36:"http://educationnext.org/?p=49683659";s:7:"attribs";a:1:{s:0:"";a:1:{s:11:"isPermaLink";s:5:"false";}}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:280:"As the use of smart speakers like Google Home and Amazon Echo becomes widespread in homes, some wonder whether voice-activated technology technology could prove useful in the classroom. Michael Horn joins Marty West to discuss how this might work and what the challenges might be.";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:32:"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/";a:1:{s:7:"creator";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:14:"Education Next";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:40:"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:2281:"<a href="https://www.educationnext.org/hey-alexa-could-voice-activation-help-kids-learn-technology-disrupt-classroom/" target="_blank"><img class="alignright size-full wp-image-49683658" style="float: right;padding-top: 5px;padding-bottom: 5px;padding-left: 5px" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext-mar18-podcast-horn-alexa.jpg" alt="" width="350" /></a>
As the use of smart speakers like Google Home and Amazon Echo becomes widespread in homes, some wonder whether voice-activated technology technology could prove useful in the classroom.
Michael Horn joins Marty West to discuss how this might work and what the challenges might be.
Michael Horn is the author of &#8220;<a href="https://www.educationnext.org/hey-alexa-could-voice-activation-help-kids-learn-technology-disrupt-classroom/" target="_blank">Hey Alexa, Can You Help Kids Learn More? The next technology that could disrupt the classroom</a>.&#8221;
The EdNext Podcast is available on <a href="https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/ednext-podcast/id1063838014" target="_blank">Apple Podcasts</a>, <a href="https://goo.gl/app/playmusic?ibi=com.google.PlayMusic&amp;isi=691797987&amp;ius=googleplaymusic&amp;link=https://play.google.com/music/m/Il6qqkvnsdj6ohp3vv5aembwrxi?t%3DEdNext_Podcast" target="_blank">Google Play</a>, <a href="https://soundcloud.com/education-next" target="_blank">Soundcloud</a>, <a href="http://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=73631&amp;refid=stpr" target="_blank">Stitcher</a> and <a href="https://www.educationnext.org/category/multimedia/podcast/ednext-podcast/" target="_blank">here</a> every Wednesday.
– Education Next
<div class='shareaholic-canvas' data-app='share_buttons' data-title='EdNext Podcast: Could Voice-Activated Technology Transform the Classroom?' data-link='https://www.educationnext.org/ednext-podcast-voice-activated-technology-transform-the-classroom/' data-summary='As the use of smart speakers like Google Home and Amazon Echo becomes widespread in homes, some wonder whether voice-activated technology technology could prove useful in the classroom. Michael Horn joins Marty West to discuss how this might work and what the challenges might be.' data-app-id='28510232' data-app-id-name='category_below_content'></div>";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:36:"http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/";a:1:{s:10:"commentRss";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:101:"https://www.educationnext.org/ednext-podcast-voice-activated-technology-transform-the-classroom/feed/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:38:"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/";a:1:{s:8:"comments";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:1:"1";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:31;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:72:"

";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:5:{s:0:"";a:7:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:85:"Can Digital Also Mean Low-Tech? Yes, and It Can Enhance Teaching – by Thomas Arnett";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:86:"https://www.educationnext.org/can-digital-also-mean-low-tech-yes-can-enhance-teaching/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"comments";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:95:"https://www.educationnext.org/can-digital-also-mean-low-tech-yes-can-enhance-teaching/#comments";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Thu, 22 Feb 2018 05:01:02 +0000";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"category";a:11:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:4:"Blog";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:1;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:9:"Editorial";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:2;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"Technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:3;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"blended learning";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:4;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"digital learning";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:5;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:20:"Digital Learning Day";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:6;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:13:"digital tools";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:7;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:20:"education technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:8;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:27:"technology in the classroom";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:9;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:22:"technology integration";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:10;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:13:"Thomas Arnett";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:36:"http://educationnext.org/?p=49683240";s:7:"attribs";a:1:{s:0:"";a:1:{s:11:"isPermaLink";s:5:"false";}}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:124:"Simple innovations, like digital lesson plans, can go a long way toward improving teacher effectiveness and student outcomes";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:32:"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/";a:1:{s:7:"creator";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:13:"Thomas Arnett";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:40:"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:5986:"<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-49683239" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext-feb18-blog-arnett-digital.jpg" alt="" width="690" />
With Digital Learning Day around the corner, many teachers may be inundated with research, how-to’s, and intricate tools, all revolving around the descriptor “digital.” But does digital technology need to be that complicated?
When most people picture world-changing technologies, they immediately conjure mental images of rockets, computers, and smartphones. But when the word “technology” or “digital” is too closely associated with devices or software, we can easily overlook powerful technologies of a different sort–especially in today’s schools.
So what exactly is one of the powerful tools in today’s schools? One answer is low-tech, digital lesson plans.
Technology doesn’t have to be synonymous with difficult
In<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Innovators-Solution-Creating-Sustaining-Successful/dp/1422196577" target="_blank"> The Innovator’s Solution</a>, Clayton Christensen and his colleagues define technology as “the process that any company [or individual or organization] uses to convert inputs of labor, materials, capital, energy, and information into outputs of greater value.” When we broaden the term “technology” to this definition, we start to see that many important advances do not have screens, buttons, or mechanically motivated parts. New test procedures for quality control technicians, new surgical techniques for cardiac surgeons, and new lesson plans for teachers are all valuable forms of technology.
For example, a<a href="https://www.nber.org/papers/w22398" target="_blank"> study</a> released by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that giving middle school math teachers access to lesson plans from the company<a href="http://www.mathalicious.com/" target="_blank"> Mathalicious</a> resulted in a statistically significant increase in student achievement. Moreover, the lesson plans had the greatest impact in the hands of weaker teachers. Similarly, a<a href="https://www.brookings.edu/research/choosing-blindly-instructional-materials-teacher-effectiveness-and-the-common-core/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> study</a> published by the Brookings Institution found that upgrading teachers’ curricula had a substantial effect on student learning.
Although not viewed as very high-tech, digital lesson plans and curricula are nonetheless valuable technologies for improving teacher effectiveness and student learning.
Low-tech, digital tools for better teaching and learning
Using low-tech, digital tools and resources, like digital lesson plans, in the classroom can help benefit teaching and learning in a few ways:
1. By codifying complex teaching skills
In education, we expect teachers to have wide-ranging expertise—from content knowledge to pedagogical knowledge, to curriculum design, to classroom management, to designing and administering assessments, to managing relationships with parents, to overseeing non-academic activities. With so many complex tasks falling in teachers’ domain of responsibility, it’s no surprise that there is often wide variation in teachers’ skills and expertise and, as a result, in their impact on student learning.
But simple innovations, like digital lesson plans, that codify complex and intuitive teaching skills into simple instructions for teachers to follow can go a long way toward improving teacher effectiveness and student outcomes. As the authors of the Mathalicious study noted:
<blockquote>In our model, lessons designed to develop understanding substitute for teacher effort on this task so that teachers who may only excel at imparting knowledge can be effective overall–simplifying the job of teaching. … Benefits were much larger for weaker teachers, suggesting that weaker teachers compensated for skill deficiencies by substituting the lessons for their own efforts.</blockquote>
2. By saving time for classroom management
Depending on the lesson plan, it can automate tasks such as logging assignments and checking multiple choice or fill-in-the-blank answers on tests and quizzes. Teachers will also change how they plan curriculum, units, and lessons as software can take care of some basic instruction.
As more classroom management functionality becomes automated, this frees up time for teachers to spend more of their skills and mental energy on more important things for students and their learning; such as tailoring learning to student needs and focusing more on individual and small group instruction than on managing large classes.
Schools looking for ways to leverage technology to improve student learning should note that some of the most worthwhile technologies may be low-tech lesson plans and curricula that turn complex teaching tasks into simple, rules-based practices with options for freeing up valuable classroom management time.
— Thomas Arnett
Thomas Arnett is a Research Fellow of Education at the Clayton Christensen Institute.
This post originally appeared on <a href="https://www.christenseninstitute.org/blog/can-digital-also-mean-low-tech-yes-can-enhance-teaching/" target="_blank">ChristensenInstitute.org</a>.
<div class='shareaholic-canvas' data-app='share_buttons' data-title='Can Digital Also Mean Low-Tech? Yes, and It Can Enhance Teaching' data-link='https://www.educationnext.org/can-digital-also-mean-low-tech-yes-can-enhance-teaching/' data-summary='Simple innovations, like digital lesson plans, can go a long way toward improving teacher effectiveness and student outcomes' data-app-id='28510232' data-app-id-name='category_below_content'></div>";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:36:"http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/";a:1:{s:10:"commentRss";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:91:"https://www.educationnext.org/can-digital-also-mean-low-tech-yes-can-enhance-teaching/feed/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:38:"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/";a:1:{s:8:"comments";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:1:"1";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:32;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:69:"

";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:3:{s:0:"";a:6:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:101:"Providing Computers Does Not Improve College Enrollment, Employment, or Earnings – by Jay P. Greene";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:101:"https://www.educationnext.org/providing-computers-not-improve-college-enrollment-employment-earnings/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Thu, 08 Feb 2018 05:08:59 +0000";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"category";a:13:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:4:"Blog";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:1;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:9:"Editorial";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:2;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"Technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:3;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:17:"college admission";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:4;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:18:"college attainment";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:5;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:18:"college enrollment";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:6;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"computer science";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:7;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:9:"computers";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:8;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:20:"education technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:9;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"Jay Greene";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:10;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:13:"Jay P. Greene";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:11;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:27:"technology in the classroom";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:12;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:22:"technology integration";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:36:"http://educationnext.org/?p=49683105";s:7:"attribs";a:1:{s:0:"";a:1:{s:11:"isPermaLink";s:5:"false";}}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:148:"A new study examines the effects of an experiment in which some community college students received free computers and others did not by lottery. ";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:32:"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/";a:1:{s:7:"creator";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:13:"Jay P. Greene";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:40:"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:4346:"<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-49683104" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext-feb18-blog-greene-computers.jpg" alt="" width="690" />
In a <a href="http://www.nber.org/papers/w24276#fromrss" target="_blank">fascinating new</a> <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272775717304545" target="_blank">study</a> by Robert W. Fairlie and Peter Riley Bahr, they examine the effects of an experiment in which some community college students received free computers and others did not by lottery.  Comparing these randomly assigned treatment and control groups, the researchers found that computer skills rose among students who were given computers, but those skills did not translate into higher college enrollment, employment, or earnings for the treatment group.
These results are particularly important because many politicians have focused on improving computer skills as the key to improving educational outcomes.  In Arkansas, <a href="https://www.wired.com/2015/03/arkansas-computer-science/" target="_blank">the main education policy initiative championed by the governor is a law that requires all public schools to offer computer science classes</a>.  <a href="https://tceaadvocacy.wordpress.com/2014/04/15/texas-sboe-requires-districts-to-offer-two-computer-science-courses/" target="_blank">Texas has adopted a similar policy</a>.  Leaving aside all of the obvious practical concerns, like whether schools have or can develop staff qualified to teach computer science, this new research raises questions about the aim of these policies.  How important is increasing computer skills for the vast majority of students?  No one doubts that most workers have to use computers, but many students may already possess the skills they need and it seems doubtful that raising average computer skills would lead to significant changes in employment outcomes — and that’s assuming we can improve computer skills in a meaningful way.
The new study is also incredibly useful in that it reminds us of how important it is to rely on randomized experiments rather than studies that use matching or controls for observables.  They conclude:
<blockquote>Importantly, our null effect estimates from the random experiment differ substantially from those found from an analysis of CPS data, raising concerns about the potential for selection bias in non-experimental estimates of returns.  Estimates from regressions with detailed controls, nearest-neighbor models, and propensity score models all indicate large, positive, and statistically significant relationships between computer ownership and earnings and employment, in sharp contrast to the null effects of our experiment.  It may be that non-experimental estimates overstate the labor market returns to computer skills.</blockquote>
It is simply false that <a href="https://jaypgreene.com/2017/08/28/credo-is-not-the-gold-standard/" target="_blank">matching studies are just as good or almost as good as randomized experiments</a>.  Sometimes you get the same result in a matching and RCT study, but that could simply be because selection did not bias the result in that case or you were just lucky.  Sometimes a coin flip will also give you the same result.  Theoretically, we know that selection bias is a serious concern, which means that we can never have strong confidence in research designs that assume selection issues don’t exist.
— Jay Greene
Jay P. Greene is endowed chair and head of the Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas.
This post originally appeared <a href="https://jaypgreene.com/2018/02/06/providing-computers-does-not-improve-college-enrollment-employment-or-earnings/" target="_blank">on his blog</a>.
<div class='shareaholic-canvas' data-app='share_buttons' data-title='Providing Computers Does Not Improve College Enrollment, Employment, or Earnings' data-link='https://www.educationnext.org/providing-computers-not-improve-college-enrollment-employment-earnings/' data-summary='A new study examines the effects of an experiment in which some community college students received free computers and others did not by lottery.' data-app-id='28510232' data-app-id-name='category_below_content'></div>";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:33;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:93:"

";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:3:{s:0:"";a:6:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:160:"In the News: Inside the $28,000-a-year private school where children of tech workers learn to become the next Mark Zuckerberg or Elon Musk – by Education Next";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:134:"https://www.educationnext.org/news-inside-28000-year-private-school-children-tech-workers-learn-become-next-mark-zuckerberg-elon-musk/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Tue, 06 Feb 2018 18:05:20 +0000";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"category";a:21:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:4:"Blog";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:1;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"Technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:2;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:5:"BASIS";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:3;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:20:"BASIS charter school";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:4;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:13:"BASIS network";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:5;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:13:"basis schools";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:6;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:14:"charter school";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:7;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:23:"charter school networks";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:8;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:15:"charter schools";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:9;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"computer science";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:10;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:20:"education technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:11;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:13:"June Kronholz";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:12;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"Richard Whitmire";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:13;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:13:"School Choice";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:14;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:7:"science";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:15;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:18:"science curriculum";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:16;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:4:"STEM";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:17;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:24:"technological innovation";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:18;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:24:"technology and schooling";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:19;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:27:"technology in the classroom";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:20;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:22:"technology integration";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:36:"http://educationnext.org/?p=49683082";s:7:"attribs";a:1:{s:0:"";a:1:{s:11:"isPermaLink";s:5:"false";}}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:91:"BASIS runs a small handful of private schools in addition to its 25 public charter schools.";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:32:"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/";a:1:{s:7:"creator";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:14:"Education Next";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:40:"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:3276:"<a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/inside-basis-the-school-where-silicon-valley-tech-workers-send-kids-2018-2" target="_blank"><img class="alignright size-full wp-image-49683080" style="float: right;padding-top: 5px;padding-bottom: 5px;padding-left: 5px" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext-feb18-ototn-bi-techworkers.jpg" alt="" width="400" /></a>
BASIS runs 25 charter schools, and there are always a few BASIS charter schools listed among the top public schools in the U.S. These are free public schools with no admissions requirements. They admit students by lottery. But in addition to the public charter schools there are a small handful of private BASIS schools that charge $25,000 or more in tuition.
<a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/inside-basis-the-school-where-silicon-valley-tech-workers-send-kids-2018-2" target="_blank">For Business Insider</a>, Melia Robinson spent a day at the private school BASIS runs in Silicon Valley, taking photos and talking with students and teachers. Most of the students Robinson talks with are children of immigrants who work in tech and who want their children to get good jobs in tech.
For more on BASIS charter schools, read June Kronholz&#8217;s feature story, &#8220;<a href="https://www.educationnext.org/high-scores-at-basis-charter-schools/" target="_blank">High Scores at BASIS Charter Schools</a>&#8221; in the Winter 2014 issue of EdNext. She wrote
<blockquote>BASIS schools are open admission. They operate on a shoestring budget: the Arizona schools operate on about two-thirds of the average funding for a child in a traditional public school. Classes are large: up to 30 students in middle school. Technology is “akin to cuneiform tablets,” Scottsdale’s head of school, Hadley Ruggles, told me.
The BASIS curriculum and its hard-charging teachers go a long way toward explaining the schools’ success. Fifth graders take Latin and can expect 90 minutes a day of homework. Middle schoolers have nine hours a week of biology, chemistry, and physics. Algebra starts in 6th grade; AP calculus is a graduation requirement. The English curriculum separates literature and language, or critical thought; high schoolers take both. There are year-end comprehensives; fail even one and it means repeating the grade.</blockquote>
Richard Whitmire wrote about the role BASIS schools were playing in attracting suburban families to charter schools in &#8220;<a href="https://www.educationnext.org/middle-class-families-choose-charters/" target="_blank">More Middle-Class Families Choose Charters</a>&#8221; in the Summer 2015 issue of EdNext
— Education Next
<div class='shareaholic-canvas' data-app='share_buttons' data-title='In the News: Inside the $28,000-a-year private school where children of tech workers learn to become the next Mark Zuckerberg or Elon Musk' data-link='https://www.educationnext.org/news-inside-28000-year-private-school-children-tech-workers-learn-become-next-mark-zuckerberg-elon-musk/' data-summary='BASIS runs a small handful of private schools in addition to its 25 public charter schools.' data-app-id='28510232' data-app-id-name='category_below_content'></div>";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:34;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:87:"

";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:3:{s:0:"";a:6:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:90:"New Research Answers Whether Technology is Good or Bad for Learning – by Michael B. Horn";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:88:"https://www.educationnext.org/new-research-answers-whether-technology-good-bad-learning/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Tue, 21 Nov 2017 05:38:30 +0000";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"category";a:13:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:4:"Blog";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:1;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:9:"Editorial";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:2;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"Technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:3;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"blended learning";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:4;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"digital learning";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:5;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:20:"education technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:6;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:22:"educational technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:7;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:7:"laptops";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:8;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:15:"Michael B. Horn";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:9;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:12:"Michael Horn";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:10;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:24:"technology and schooling";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:11;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:27:"technology in the classroom";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:12;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:22:"technology integration";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:36:"http://educationnext.org/?p=49682036";s:7:"attribs";a:1:{s:0:"";a:1:{s:11:"isPermaLink";s:5:"false";}}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:150:"There's been an infuriating log-jam between those who argue technology is a distraction at best and those who argue it is an extremely positive force.";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:32:"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/";a:1:{s:7:"creator";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:15:"Michael B. Horn";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:40:"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:8976:"<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-49682038" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext-nov17-blog-horn-technology-classroom.jpg" alt="" width="690" />
For years educators and scholars have debated whether technology aids learning or inhibits it.
In the most recent issue of Education Next, for example, Susan Payne Carter, Kyle Greenberg, and Michael S. Walker <a href="https://www.educationnext.org/should-professors-ban-laptops-classroom-computer-use-affects-student-learning-study/" target="_blank">write</a> about their research finding that allowing any computer usage in the classroom “reduces students’ average final-exam performance by roughly one-fifth of a standard deviation.” Other studies have shown similarly dismal numbers for student learning when technology is introduced in the classroom.
Yet there are also bright shining stars of technology use—both in proof points and in studies, such as this Ithaka <a href="http://www.sr.ithaka.org/research-publications/interactive-learning-online-public-universities-evidence-randomized-trials" target="_blank">study</a> or this U.S. Department of Education 2010 <a href="https://www.christenseninstitute.org/blog/study-bolsters-hybrid-online-learning-efficacy/">meta-analysis</a>.
So what gives? Since 2008 <a href="http://blogs.britannica.com/2008/10/technology-can-have-a-positive-impact-on-education-deploy-it-disruptively" target="_blank">I’ve, perhaps conveniently, argued</a> that scholars and advocates on both sides of this debate are correct. As we wrote in <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Disrupting-Class-Expanded-Disruptive-Innovation/dp/0071749101" target="_blank">Disrupting Class</a> in 2008, computers had been around for two decades. Even 10 years ago, we had already spent over $60 billion on them in K–12 schools in the United States to little effect. The reason quite simply was that when we crammed computers into existing learning models, they produced begrudging or negative results. To take a higher education example, when I was a student at the Harvard Business School, far fewer of us paid attention to the case discussion on the couple days at the end of the term when laptops were allowed, as we chose to instead chat online and coordinate evening plans. In that context, I would ban laptops, too.
When the learning model is fundamentally redesigned to incorporate intentionally the benefits of technology, say, in a <a href="http://www.blendedlearning.org" target="_blank">blended-learning model</a>, however, you can get very different results. To use another personal example, I fervently hope that the public school district where my daughters will go to school will comprehensively redesign its learning environments to personalize learning for each student through the use of technology. As we disruptive innovation acolytes like to say, it’s almost always about the model, not the technology.
This finding isn’t unique to the technology of computers in classrooms. It was true with chalkboards as well.
As Harvard’s David Dockterman <a href="https://www.christenseninstitute.org/blog/cramming/">recounts</a>, the blackboard was reportedly invented in the early 19th century. The technology was adopted quickly throughout higher education in a lecture model to convey information to all the students at once. The first recorded use in North America was in 1801 at the United States Military Academy in West Point—ironically the location of the study that Carter, Greenberg, and Walker conducted—and it spread quickly.
Having observed the success of the blackboard in college, schoolhouses began installing the technology, but the teaching and learning changed minimally. The blackboards were largely unused because teachers had difficulty figuring out how to use them. Why? At the time, the prevalent model of education in public schools was the one-room schoolhouse in which all students, regardless of age or level, met in a single room and were taught by a single teacher. Rather than teaching all the students the same subjects, in the same way, at the same pace—like in today’s schools—the teacher rotated around the room and worked individually with small groups of students. As a result, the blackboard didn’t make much sense in the context of the one-room schoolhouse because the teacher rarely, if ever, stood in front of the class to lecture.
It wasn’t until the early 1900s when the public education system changed its instructional model—to today’s factory model—that the blackboard became a staple of American education. Lesson? The model matters.
Fast forward to today, and we see the same dynamic. A new—and very helpful—<a href="https://www.nber.org/papers/w23744" target="_blank">analysis of the research</a> helps tease this out and perhaps can at last break the infuriating log-jam between those who argue technology is a distraction at best and those who argue it is an extremely positive force.
At J-PAL—MIT’s Poverty Action Lab—Maya Escueta (Columbia), Vincent Quan (J-PAL North America), Andre Joshua Nickow (Northwestern), and Phil Oreopoulos (University of Toronto; Co-Chair, J-PAL’s Education sector) <a href="https://www.povertyactionlab.org/blog/9-5-17/exploring-promise-education-technology" target="_blank">released a review</a> of more than 100 experimental studies (RCTs and RDDs) in education technology to examine the evidence across four key areas of education technology: access to technology, computer-assisted learning, technology-based behavioral interventions in education, and online learning.
Among the findings, according to the summary J-PAL provided:
• Computer-assisted learning, in which educational software helps students develop particular skills, is particularly promising, especially in math. This is likely because of the software’s ability to personalize by adapting to a student’s learning level and letting the student learn at the right pace for her, as well as the ability to provide teachers immediate feedback on student performance that is actionable. This is of course no surprise to those of us who have been excited about blended-learning models that personalize learning for students.
• Technology-based behavioral interventions—like nudging a student to register for a course—produce consistently improved learning outcomes.
• Initiatives that provide computers to every student in a classroom do not improve learning outcomes. That is <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelhorn/2012/08/22/no-shock-as-perus-one-to-one-laptops-miss-mark/" target="_blank">very predictable given our research on the perils of cramming technology</a>. I’ll repeat myself again here: You have to focus on the learning model first followed by the technology in service of that learning model. Initiatives that start with the technology almost always fail in my experience.
• Research on online courses is still early, but it appears that “blended” courses produce similar outcomes as in-person courses, which could drive down costs. In-person classes outperform fully online ones—a reason to still keep fully online courses focused on areas of nonconsumption, where the alternative is nothing at all and therefore not competing against an in-person course.
In my view, this is what I’d expect a review to find, as it points to the tremendous promise of technology to personalize learning (note: the outcomes here are still reliant on good learning design) and the peril of merely cramming technology in to existing, analog learning models.
Will this spur the research community to take note and sharpen the questions it asks about technology and learning going forward? Let’s hope so. It’s high time we move beyond a broken debate and simplistic research around whether technology in education is good or bad that serve no one’s interests.
— Michael B. Horn
Michael Horn is a co-founder of and a distinguished fellow at the Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation.
This post originally appeared on <a href="https://www.christenseninstitute.org/blog/new-research-answers-whether-technology-good-bad-learning/" target="_blank">ChristensenInstitute.org</a>
<div class='shareaholic-canvas' data-app='share_buttons' data-title='New Research Answers Whether Technology is Good or Bad for Learning' data-link='https://www.educationnext.org/new-research-answers-whether-technology-good-bad-learning/' data-summary='There&#039;s been an infuriating log-jam between those who argue technology is a distraction at best and those who argue it is an extremely positive force.' data-app-id='28510232' data-app-id-name='category_below_content'></div>";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:37;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:69:"

";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:3:{s:0:"";a:6:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:91:"Without the Right Curriculum, Personalized Learning Is Just Another Fad – by Amber Oliver";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:94:"https://www.educationnext.org/without-right-curriculum-personalized-learning-just-another-fad/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Tue, 31 Oct 2017 05:04:59 +0000";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"category";a:13:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:4:"Blog";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:1;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:9:"Editorial";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:2;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"Technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:3;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:12:"Amber Oliver";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:4;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"digital learning";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:5;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:20:"education technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:6;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:15:"Michael B. Horn";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:7;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:15:"personalization";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:8;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:21:"Personalized Learning";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:9;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"personalized learning framework";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:10;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:30:"personalized learning platform";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:11;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:27:"technology in the classroom";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:12;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:22:"technology integration";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:36:"http://educationnext.org/?p=49681790";s:7:"attribs";a:1:{s:0:"";a:1:{s:11:"isPermaLink";s:5:"false";}}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:116:"Personalizing learning will be most powerful when it is coupled with intentional, coherent and rigorous instruction.";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:32:"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/";a:1:{s:7:"creator";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:12:"Amber Oliver";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:40:"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:7462:"<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-49681789" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext-nov17-blog-oliver-horn-personalized-fad.jpg" alt="" width="690" />
More school leaders than ever before are seeking to harness digital tools to personalize learning and to prepare students for life after school, when creating and thinking with technology will be at the heart of being engaged and productive members of society.
But these goals risk missing the bigger picture. Preparing students to be lifelong learners capable of partaking knowledgeably in both civic life and a rapidly changing workforce requires not just focusing on technology, personalization, or even coding, but the broader content and foundation at the heart of these experiences. The curriculum—what students are learning—matters.
That manifests in different, but related, ways.
For example, as students learn to read, it is critical that they build a strong and wide foundation of knowledge. A learner’s background knowledge is a key ingredient in her ability to learn and absorb information from what she is reading and consuming. Accordingly, personalizing learning through technology will be most powerful when it is coupled with intentional, coherent and rigorous instruction.
Yes, tapping into and developing children’s interests and instilling in them a sense of ownership of their education is important. Yet allowing them unbridled choice of what they learn, especially when they are young, means that in certain cases they will miss building that foundation. Despite the <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/02/15/385774711/q-a-exit-interview-with-a-nationally-known-school-leader" target="_blank">claims from some</a> that content knowledge no longer matters in a world where everything is google-able, possessing deep background knowledge remains imperative for students to be able to read across a wide range of subjects and literary genres and be successful learners.
If students don’t have a working familiarity with a body of knowledge, a new passage on the topic—no matter how elementary it may seem and no matter how strong the reader’s fundamental decoding skills—will frustrate. A <a href="http://www.literacyhow.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Effect-of-Prior-Knowledge-on-Good-and-Poor-Readers-Memory-of-Text.pdf" target="_blank">famous experiment</a> about baseball illustrates the concept. Given a common passage about baseball, so-called “low-ability” readers who knew a lot about baseball significantly out-performed so-called “high-ability” readers who knew little. The reason is that the high-ability readers did not have the context to make sense of what they were reading. Imagine the bewilderment of someone who knew nothing about baseball trying to understand why the crowd cheered when a runner stole a base—an act that might sound criminal in another setting.
Without at least a working familiarity with a topic, Google—where you have to generate the right question to ask—will only take you so far in the moment. That is because, as cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham wrote, “Every passage that you read omits information. All of this omitted information must be brought to the text by the reader.”
One challenge for schools is that each student possesses different background knowledge. Students from affluent families, for example, tend to enjoy exposure to a range of experiences outside school that build their knowledge without them even realizing it. They can arguably get away with schools that are less intentional about building knowledge. Low-income students often have a far more limited set of experiences outside of school that leaves them further behind.
Within these broad groupings, the differences are even more disparate. Building learners’ background knowledge in scalable ways that is personalized to their particular needs is challenging. This is where technology can make a big difference. It can help educators personalize—not for its own sake or just because a student likes a particular topic—but so that students learn a solid foundation to participate civically and gain exposure to fields to build passions and even a career.
Similarly, although society’s insufficient STEM career pipeline is one good reason to bring computer science into schools, focusing narrowly on preparing the younger generation for coding careers could have major limits, given that many of these jobs may not exist or be as valued in the future. What we really need is a generation of people with the power to invent, design and think creatively across disciplines using all the tools, including computers, at their disposal—not a never-ending pipeline of programmers.
This again puts the focus on curriculum, as it requires us to rethink how we teach computers in a way that supports students becoming strong computational thinkers and doers in service of being mathematicians, readers, writers, scientists, thinkers and learners. This can’t happen if they don’t have a strong grasp of the content they are meant to be analyzing, organizing, simulating and modeling with their computing skills.
To <a href="https://brightreads.com/a-different-approach-to-coding-d679b06d83a" target="_blank">paraphrase</a> Mitchel Resnick of MIT’s Media Lab and David Siegel, co-founder of the hedge fund Two Sigma: If coding is going to make a true difference in children’s lives, it is important to move beyond the traditional view of the discipline as simply a technical skill, or just a pipeline to getting a technical job. Rather, coding must be viewed as a new type of literacy and personal expression, and a way for people to organize, express, and share their ideas that is valuable for everyone, much like learning to write. Early research suggests that computational thinking—the ability to formulate problems and then use computers to help solve those problems—and computing education have the potential to develop students’ higher-order thinking, problem-solving, collaboration and communication skills, which can help them become deeper learners across the curriculum.
Educators’ increasing embrace of technology to personalize and offer computing education is encouraging. But how educators do that—having rigorous content with the opportunities to create at the heart—will matter significantly to the success of students and these efforts in the years ahead.
— Amber Oliver and Michael Horn
Amber Oliver is Director of the Learning + Technology Fund at Robin Hood Foundation. Michael Horn is a co-founder of and a distinguished fellow at the Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation.
This post originally appeared on <a href="https://www.edsurge.com/news/2017-10-23-without-the-right-curriculum-personalized-learning-is-just-another-fad" target="_blank">EdSurge</a>.
<div class='shareaholic-canvas' data-app='share_buttons' data-title='Without the Right Curriculum, Personalized Learning Is Just Another Fad' data-link='https://www.educationnext.org/without-right-curriculum-personalized-learning-just-another-fad/' data-summary='Personalizing learning will be most powerful when it is coupled with intentional, coherent and rigorous instruction.' data-app-id='28510232' data-app-id-name='category_below_content'></div>";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:38;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:57:"

";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:5:{s:0:"";a:7:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:69:"How to Avoid Getting Ripped Off by Ed-Tech Vendors – by Rob Waldron";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:87:"https://www.educationnext.org/how-to-avoid-getting-ripped-off-ed-tech-vendors-ten-tips/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"comments";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:96:"https://www.educationnext.org/how-to-avoid-getting-ripped-off-ed-tech-vendors-ten-tips/#comments";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Tue, 12 Sep 2017 04:07:20 +0000";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"category";a:11:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:8:"Features";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:1;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:7:"Journal";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:2;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"Technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:3;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:21:"Curriculum Associates";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:4;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:6:"edtech";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:5;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:20:"education technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:6;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:22:"educational technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:7;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:11:"Rob Waldron";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:8;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:27:"technology in the classroom";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:9;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:22:"technology integration";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:10;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:7:"vendors";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:36:"http://educationnext.org/?p=49680803";s:7:"attribs";a:1:{s:0:"";a:1:{s:11:"isPermaLink";s:5:"false";}}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:54:"Ten tips for school districts from an industry insider";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:32:"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/";a:1:{s:7:"creator";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:11:"Rob Waldron";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:40:"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:22395:"<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-49680809" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext_XVIII_1_waldron_img01.jpg" alt="" width="690" />
During our honeymoon in Istanbul several decades ago, my wife and I found ourselves caught up in negotiations in the famed carpet souk. Having expressed a flicker of interest in one of the rugs we passed, we were whisked into an extraordinary sales pitch, the likes of which I’ve never encountered in all my years as a CEO. Dazzled by intricate weaving and gorgeous colors, we were fish in a barrel—fish with no idea what questions to ask, how to check for quality, or what to pay for such a rug. We emerged dazed, with significantly fewer lira and a lovely rug we never knew we needed.
Only later did we learn there is a marked difference between the exquisite workmanship of true artisans and the shoddy work done on rugs that will leave your floors stained with dye. We also learned we could have paid half of what we shelled out if we’d been more adept at negotiating.
<a href="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext_XVIII_1_waldron_fig01.jpg" target="_blank"><img class="alignright size-full wp-image-49680806" style="float: right;padding-top: 5px;padding-bottom: 5px;padding-left: 5px" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext_XVIII_1_waldron_fig01-small.jpg" alt="" width="400" /></a>To those shopping for educational technology, the snares and pitfalls of the marketplace pose analogous challenges: purchasers are at risk of getting ripped off if they aren’t sufficiently informed. In today’s increasingly crowded market, school administrators need to see beyond glittery promises and learn how to invest in cost-effective programs that will drive the greatest gains for students. With hundreds if not thousands of students affected by a single purchasing decision, the stakes could not be higher.
Companies have developed a dizzying array of new software tools designed to do everything from assessing and monitoring students’ progress to supporting a blended-learning environment to supplying entire curricula, complete with online activities and homework assignments. And educators seem to have developed a taste for these new digital tools, because the K–12 ed-tech market is on the rise. About 30 percent of school districts are increasing their software spending, according to a 2015 report from EdNET Insight. And EdWeek Market Brief reports that U.S. spending on K–12 ed-tech is expected to grow to $1.83 billion by 2020, a 38 percent increase relative to 2014 (see Figure 1).
As the CEO of a leading ed-tech company, I have worked with hundreds of school districts over the years. I’ve witnessed most every purchasing mistake that can be made, and, on the flip side, have developed a detailed understanding of what works. In this article, I tap into this expertise to help you make the most of your ed-tech dollars when you are purchasing software for your K‒12 students. Here are my top-10 tips:
1. Check the Fridge Before You Go Shopping
Before you can decide what you need, you’ve got to know what you already have. So do an audit—of current hardware, software, apps, and any established practices associated with these products. Calculate the ongoing license costs of current software and figure out what you can eliminate. You may find that you have a lot that you’re not using.
One district recently conducted an assessment audit and inventoried a whopping 332 student assessments in use. Administrators were shocked. It turned out that district administrators preferred one set of tests, school administrators another, and teachers a third. And while the initial decisions behind each of these chosen assessments made sense, they were made in silos, with well-intentioned teams not communicating with one another. The collection was overwhelming, often redundant, and not serving students well.
To avoid a scenario like this, be sure your audit includes a survey of your staff, including curriculum coordinators, the CIO, principals, and teachers. Free tools such as Google Forms, Zoomerang, or SurveyMonkey can help as you compile a list of your current programs.
Be sure to ask:
• Which tools are you using most? Why, and for what specific purpose?
• Which tools are you using least? Why? Be specific.
• Which are your top-three favorite tools? Why? Be specific.
• Which are your least favorite? Why? Be specific.
In analyzing your survey results, pay attention to the reasons certain tools are revered, and look for redundancies. It’s generally best to take something away before you add, and knowing what tools you currently have and the purposes they serve will clarify where excess can be cut, what your needs are, and how best to meet them.
2. Ask: What Is the Technology Being “Hired” to Do?
This question should guide many of your internal conversations and serve as a focal point in the buying process. Do you need help with Response to Intervention (RTI), streamlining data, transitioning to new standards, support for a blended-learning initiative, a better way to communicate with parents about student growth? Do your best to narrow the scope of your answer and keep it simple and targeted. For example, state clearly and succinctly “save teachers time and improve reading gains for the lowest 10 percent of students.”
Debate the question with your team as necessary, ensuring you involve classroom teachers in the discussion. While it is easy to get mired in sorting through a program’s features, finding a tool that improves the ways teachers work with students should remain your North Star.
Beware of products that say “yes” to every feature you would like. Try to check too many boxes and you’ll likely end up overpaying for a product that under-delivers. If you can’t come up with a specific, unanimous answer to the question posed above, you will likely have problems with implementation and consistent use down the road. In the same vein, keep your expectations in line with the product’s features. I recall an instance when a new customer expressed frustration with the things our product didn’t do. Just as you wouldn’t expect a Ferrari to act like a pickup truck, neither should you expect a technology to do a job for which it was not designed.
And if you’re not exactly sure how your answer to the above question translates into product features, consider first issuing a request for information (RFI) before a request for proposals (RFP). The vendor responses should allow you to see what’s out there before you write a more official RFP. When you do get to that step, limit each company’s response to a maximum of 10 pages so you are not bombarded with too much information.
3. Buy off the Rack
I recognize that every student is unique and every school has distinctive circumstances, but your district’s tech needs are probably not as singular as you may think—and custom tailoring is expensive.
In my experience, highly customized products are usually unnecessary. Despite the unique qualities of every district, most objectives and challenges in K–12 education are consistent across the country. Most schools need products that help with the implementation of standards, that link instruction to assessments, that are grounded in solid and reliable data that enable better decisionmaking, that work seamlessly with other programs to create blended and personalized learning environments, and that are backed by a reputable company that provides high-quality, ongoing service and support. If you ask vendors for customizations with complex technical requirements, they will likely charge you a lot more money and disappoint you with delivery delays and under-tested add-ons.
Be specific about what you want, but don’t overreach. For example, we have seen RFPs that asked for a valid and reliable test instrument that users could customize and add items to. However, as any good researcher will tell you, a “customizable valid instrument” is an oxymoron. The moment you allow outsiders to add unique items to a test is the moment it stops being valid. The less you try to customize, the less the product will cost and the better it will perform.
4. Compare Apples to Apples
Once you have narrowed your vendor pool to three to five providers, insist that they base their presentations on a common standard of your choosing (for example, in 7th-grade math, “Know the formulas for the area and circumference of a circle and use them to solve problems”), data reporting questions, or both. This will allow you to compare different approaches to the same learning outcomes or data needs and find the best fit for your district. When you ask about results in other schools, make sure vendors are providing recent data from districts that are similar in size and makeup to yours. Make them get specific, and ask tough questions—one of my favorites is to check their renewal rate. Do 90 percent of customers renew their contracts each year, or do most jump ship? A high renewal rate is a good indicator of customer satisfaction.
Trusted independent evaluations like those available for free via edreports.org also serve as excellent tools for comparing programs.
And beware of the free trial. Vendors may try to entice you with one, but a trial (as opposed to a full pilot) likely won’t give you much additional information. While it may provide a snapshot of how the product performs and how some students may view and use it, it is unlikely to offer a deep understanding of how the product can work for you specifically.
When comparing products, look for those that are capable of seamless integration across multiple programs, and confirm that data will be easily shareable. As more student and school data move online for academic and administrative purposes, you can avoid creating extra work for your staff by dealing with companies that integrate and partner with other service providers.
5. Check References
Ask for five or six references from districts that are similar in size to yours. Email or call these references, and leave some version of this message: “If you think the product and service of (Company X) is truly outstanding, please call me back. Otherwise, there is no need to respond.”
A company with outstanding products and service has true champions who will call you back. If you don’t hear from the references, find another vendor. On reference calls, ask how the tool is improving teacher practices and affecting students. Spend at least a third of the time discussing service, including how your account will be managed, how student data will be migrated, and what they know about the company’s plans for future product enhancement.
<div id="attachment_49680810" style="width: 700px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img class="size-full wp-image-49680810" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext_XVIII_1_waldron_img02.jpg" alt="" width="690" />Rob Waldron is CEO of Curriculum Associates, an ed-tech publishing company.</div>
6. Do a Real Pilot
Once you think you’ve identified the right product for your district, consider doing a pilot. Unlike a free trial, a pilot is conducted with real students in real schools with real data. A pilot should be a partnership between vendor and district. The vendor should ask you tough questions, provide dedicated contact people, and hold regular meetings.
To be successful, a pilot must have:
• Clear goals. For example: &#8220;Provide math intervention for students in grades 3–5 that works within the limitations of the district&#8217;s technological infrastructure.&#8221;
• Internal champions. You must have key individuals invested in planning and implementing the pilot as if it were a fully purchased product. (Don’t force this role on anyone—it will not go well.)
• Sufficient time. With variations depending on the product or service, it usually takes about 12 weeks to get meaningful data and legitimate results to inform decisionmaking.
• A planned conclusion. A pilot should leave you with real data that help you understand how the product will aid you to better serve your students. What will wrap-up look like? When and how will you review the data and interview teachers?
• Transparency. All companies have limitations: insist that vendors be candid about theirs. Beware of overly accommodating vendors who promise they can do A, B, C and X, Y, Z without first understanding your needs and goals.
• Money. A good vendor wants you to have a positive, in-depth experience with the program. Be willing to invest a bit in the pilot to see greater rewards. While vendors may be able to offer free licenses during the pilot, it is difficult for them to pare down professional development costs such as trainer salaries and travel expenses.
• Reflection. In gathering comments from stakeholders, distinguish product feedback from implementation feedback.
Choose a vendor that does fewer, well-managed pilots over one managing many simultaneous pilots. It is very challenging for vendors to manage pilots well. With the high level of detail and precision required of a pilot, most vendors cannot possibly support or be invested in several pilots at the same time.
7. Put Service above Product
The billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk, whose success is rooted in innovative technology, recently remarked: “People are mistaken when they think that technology just automatically improves. . . . It only improves if a lot of people work very hard to make it better.”
This statement is especially true in regard to the ed-tech industry, where the people behind a product differentiate a good one from a great one. Even more than the quality of the product itself, the service you receive from your provider will make or break the experience of your teachers and the learning outcomes of your students. Find a partner who is committed to excellent service—not just when making the sale, but all the way through from training and implementation to ongoing support throughout the life of the product.
Try to get a sense of whether or not the vendor is proactive in fixing problems. If students are experiencing frustrations with an interface, they will let their teacher know. The teacher will then become frustrated and will let the principal know, and so on, up to the ed-tech decisionmakers. But this process could take weeks. Recently, our company visited a large district in Ohio because our support team could see from the client’s daily data logs that elementary school students were having issues with screens freezing when they used our i-Ready tool. During the visit, we brought the curriculum team and the IT team together and were able to diagnose and fix the problem. The curriculum team had been unaware of the screen-freezing issue before we called them proactively.
During the sales process, you should discuss service at length, including account management, data migration, roster sign-on, and the product road map. You should know:
• How the company handles different tiers of support
• The name of your account manager—and insist on meeting that person
• The CEO’s (or another executive’s) mobile phone number, in case you need something urgently
In our software-as-a-service world, you are going on a journey with the company whose products you choose, and you need to know how well it can adapt as academic testing standards and technology change. The last thing you want for your teachers and students is a one-year implementation. It wastes time and will leave them frustrated and perhaps reluctant to get on board with future technology changes.
8. Find Creative Savings
As with any major investment, such as a car or a house, you need to look at the total cost of ownership, not just the sticker price. If a vendor’s licensing fees look too good to be true, they probably are. That vendor may charge extra for things like setup, maintenance, and support, while other companies include those services in their regular price. Ask about the costs of all professional development, and make sure you fully understand the ongoing costs for licensing, installation, training, IT support, and troubleshooting before you close a deal.
A good vendor—one with whom you will want to partner in the long term—will want to satisfy the customer. A great one will think of ways to get you the best price and will pass savings on to you. When asking for discounts, which you should absolutely do, talk about price in real numbers and get a sense of the vendor’s true costs. Discuss ways to economize, such as:
• Having the vendor train everyone in your district over several days rather than paying for multiple visits
• Exploring the differences between seat-based and site-based licenses
• Considering site-based (in-district) support instead of offsite training that would require you to hire classroom substitutes or use professional development days
Ask vendors to send you their latest 10 sales prices, per student served, for districts of your size (at some companies, prices for the same software can vary by as much as 40 percent). Ask the company’s CFO to certify the authenticity of the information. This step will prevent you from being overcharged and reveal if a neighboring district negotiated a better deal.
Collaborative buying may be another avenue to explore; there are many purchasing consortia and cooperatives operated by school districts, state governments, and education service agencies. Such co-ops are set up to enable members to purchase a product at a negotiated price. Working with them can help save funds as well as time, since many of them have already completed lengthy RFPs. Be sure to do your homework, though, because sometimes specific conditions and requirements exclude some vendors that may have good solutions to offer.
Even if you are thinking about purchasing through a co-op, consider putting out your own RFI or RFP to give your school leaders a chance to evaluate whether the product will serve your district’s educational goals. Once you find a program that meets your needs, check the co-op’s vendor list to see whether you can get a discount.
9. Get a Guarantee, or Walk
Adopt a policy that all curriculum vendors that do business in your district must give you an unconditional money-back guarantee—no fine print. You have the purchasing power. Vendors need your business and will acquiesce to this request if you insist. At our company, if a customer is not satisfied for any reason, they may return materials for a prompt and courteous credit, exchange, or refund.
10. Get Everyone on the Bus
Correct implementation by the entire staff is crucial to the success of any program, and we see the best results when every teacher is on board and well trained with the product. Be sure that the staff are prepared to integrate the new tools in a way that is cohesive and effective for their students. And keep in mind that the total cost of a product includes the time it takes your team to learn how to use it, so build this time into schedules to ensure a successful implementation.
Everyone—district leaders, teachers, curriculum coordinators, school board, IT staff—needs to understand the product and buy in to shared objectives and expectations. Make sure the message you share is consistent. In your communications, don’t forget to include parents and, of course, the students.
As you roll out your new program, keep your messaging focused on the ways this new tool will help students (not adults). Clarify what the technology will minimize or maximize in support of student growth. Make time for this process, ensuring that decisionmakers are available to explain purchasing decisions, staff are included in professional development to understand program nuances, and families receive any necessary training or information to support their children.
And Remember &#8230;
Integrating complex new tools doesn’t happen overnight, so give programs a chance to gestate and demonstrate how they can help your students and teachers. But also remember that the product you are buying today, no matter how good, will be inadequate or incomplete before too long because of changing curriculum requirements, technological advances, and new government requirements or guidelines. That means it’s as important to focus on the partners you choose for this journey, and how well they can adapt to change, as on current product features.
Rob Waldron is CEO of Curriculum Associates, an ed-tech publishing company best known for its i-Ready and Ready products, based in North Billerica, Massachusetts.
<div class='shareaholic-canvas' data-app='share_buttons' data-title='How to Avoid Getting Ripped Off by Ed-Tech Vendors' data-link='https://www.educationnext.org/how-to-avoid-getting-ripped-off-ed-tech-vendors-ten-tips/' data-summary='Ten tips for school districts from an industry insider' data-app-id='28510232' data-app-id-name='category_below_content'></div>";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:36:"http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/";a:1:{s:10:"commentRss";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:92:"https://www.educationnext.org/how-to-avoid-getting-ripped-off-ed-tech-vendors-ten-tips/feed/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:38:"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/";a:1:{s:8:"comments";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:1:"4";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:45;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:81:"

";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:5:{s:0:"";a:7:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:86:"Should Teachers Be Allowed to Promote Commercial Products? – by Chester E. Finn, Jr.";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:75:"https://www.educationnext.org/teachers-allowed-promote-commercial-products/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"comments";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:84:"https://www.educationnext.org/teachers-allowed-promote-commercial-products/#comments";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Thu, 07 Sep 2017 04:02:37 +0000";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"category";a:14:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:4:"Blog";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:1;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:9:"Editorial";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:2;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:21:"Teachers and Teaching";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:3;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"Technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:4;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:12:"brand equity";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:5;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:12:"Checker Finn";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:6;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:19:"Chester E. Finn Jr.";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:7;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:12:"Chester Finn";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:8;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:18:"effective teachers";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:9;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:21:"high-quality teachers";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:10;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:12:"Kayla Delzer";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:11;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:14:"New York Times";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:12;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:20:"teacher compensation";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:13;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:8:"teaching";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:36:"http://educationnext.org/?p=49680857";s:7:"attribs";a:1:{s:0:"";a:1:{s:11:"isPermaLink";s:5:"false";}}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:156:"The New York Times ran an interminable front-page piece on Sunday raising doubts about the ethics and propriety of teachers who promote commercial products.";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:32:"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/";a:1:{s:7:"creator";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:20:"Chester E. Finn, Jr.";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:40:"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:6413:"The New York Times ran an <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/02/technology/silicon-valley-teachers-tech.html?mcubz=0&amp;_r=0" target="_blank">interminable front-page piece</a> on Sunday raising doubts about the ethics and propriety of teachers who promote commercial products, especially those from big tech firms like Apple and Google, for use by other teachers and their schools. The example that reporter Natasha Singer focused on—&#8221;one of the tech-savviest teachers in the United States&#8221;—is an ace third grade teacher named Kayla Delzer, whose classroom is in the hamlet of Mapleton, North Dakota. Her brand is <a href="http://www.topdogteaching.com/" target="_blank">Top Dog Teaching</a>, and she does indeed promote a wide range of instructional strategies and commercial products that range from her own line of tee shirts, to books and newsletters she’s written, to plugs for corporate products like the <a href="http://www.topdogteaching.com/2017/05/connecting-teachers-and-students.html" target="_blank">&#8220;itslearning&#8221; classroom management system</a>.
<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/02/technology/silicon-valley-teachers-tech.html?mcubz=0&amp;_r=0" target="_blank"><img class="alignright size-full wp-image-49680899" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext-sept17-blog-finn-nyt-brands.jpg" alt="" width="400" style="float: right;padding-top: 5px;padding-bottom: 5px;padding-left: 5px" /></a>That Ms. Delzer is a multi-tasking dynamo is not in dispute, nor is her instructional prowess. What the Times found a bunch of &#8220;experts&#8221; to huff about is the propriety of public-school teachers serving as “ambassadors” for the corporate world—and getting compensated in various ways for doing so.
It’s not a trivial issue—and never is when professionals who are presumably looking after the best interests of those they serve are engaged by outside interests to promote products and services sold by those interests. The most familiar version of this is when physicians are wooed and rewarded by pharmaceutical companies and end up both prescribing the products of those firms more often than might be medically indicated, as well as boosting those products to other doctors, medical students, and patients. As the Times notes, “some academic medical centers now prohibit their doctors from giving industry-sponsored speeches. And some drug companies have stopped giving doctors swag.”
The suggestion posed by the article is that there should be more &#8220;public discussion about the ramifications of similar tech-industry cultivation of teachers.&#8221;
Sure there should be such &#8220;discussion.&#8221; But as we start to huff and puff about it, let’s bear a few things in mind.
First, there’s absolutely nothing new about educators promoting commercial products—and getting compensated in various ways for doing so. That’s what happens when salesmen for textbook companies treat school superintendents to golf games and nice lunches, after which the district buys their textbooks. That’s what happens at every education conference I’ve ever attended when attendees are given lots of time to wander through vast halls full of promotions, freebies, and come-ons by the dozens (or hundreds) of conference &#8220;sponsors,&#8221; i.e., the firms that are underwriting the event itself. That’s what happens when those same firms take out ads in magazines and newsletters subscribed to by teachers and principals—or sent to them as a benefit of union membership. Speaking of which, check out the NEA website and you’ll find leads to innumerable <a href="http://www.nea.org/tools/56274.htm" target="_blank">commercial</a> <a href="http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/HE/dc_voucher_appendix_a.pdf" target="_blank">products</a> that are recommended to teachers by other teachers.
Second—pointing out the obvious—we don’t do a very good job of compensating teachers in America and many find they must supplement their incomes in various ways. Ethically and morally, what’s the difference between a teacher who promotes a Google or Microsoft product after school and during vacations, and one who promotes Tupperware, Mary Kay cosmetics, or a particular summer camp? True, the former category includes items that may be used in classrooms, and teachers who promote them should signal to their peers whether they’re being compensated by the company for doing so, but it’s hard to see an ethical concern that can’t be dealt with via transparency.
Third—and not much discussed—shouldn’t we get just as exercised about teachers who promote unproven or even harmful pedagogical ideas, such as &#8220;multiple intelligences,&#8221; &#8220;whole language&#8221; reading, and &#8220;fuzzy&#8221; math? They’re not only jeopardizing the future of children in classrooms led by other teachers who heed their counsel; unlike Ms. Delzer, they’re also ill-serving their own pupils! One of the issues raised in the long Times article is that “there is little rigorous research showing whether or not the new technologies [such as those embraced by “ambassadors” like Ms. Delzer] significantly improve student outcomes.” Fair enough. But we have tons of rigorous research showing that some instructional strategies do improve student outcomes and others do not. How are we to view teachers who employ the latter kind—and who encourage others to employ them, too?
— Chester E. Finn, Jr.
Chester E. Finn, Jr., is a Distinguished Senior Fellow and President Emeritus at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. He is also a Senior Fellow at Stanford&#8217;s Hoover Institution.
This post originally appeared on <a href="https://edexcellence.net/articles/should-teachers-have-their-own-brands" target="_blank">Flypaper</a>.
<div class='shareaholic-canvas' data-app='share_buttons' data-title='Should Teachers Be Allowed to Promote Commercial Products?' data-link='https://www.educationnext.org/teachers-allowed-promote-commercial-products/' data-summary='The New York Times ran an interminable front-page piece on Sunday raising doubts about the ethics and propriety of teachers who promote commercial products.' data-app-id='28510232' data-app-id-name='category_below_content'></div>";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:36:"http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/";a:1:{s:10:"commentRss";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:80:"https://www.educationnext.org/teachers-allowed-promote-commercial-products/feed/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:38:"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/";a:1:{s:8:"comments";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:1:"1";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:46;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:78:"

";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:5:{s:0:"";a:7:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:100:"For Better Learning in College Lectures, Lay Down the Laptop and Pick Up a Pen – by Susan Dynarski";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:93:"https://www.educationnext.org/better-learning-college-lectures-lay-down-laptop-pick-up-a-pen/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"comments";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:102:"https://www.educationnext.org/better-learning-college-lectures-lay-down-laptop-pick-up-a-pen/#comments";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Wed, 06 Sep 2017 04:02:34 +0000";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"category";a:13:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:4:"Blog";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:1;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:9:"Editorial";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:2;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"Higher Education";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:3;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"Technology";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:4;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:17:"academic research";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:5;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:7:"college";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:6;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"college lectures";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:7;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:9:"computers";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:8;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:18:"education research";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:9;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:15:"Evidence Speaks";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:10;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"higher education";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:11;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:7:"laptops";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:12;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:14:"Susan Dynarski";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:36:"http://educationnext.org/?p=49680453";s:7:"attribs";a:1:{s:0:"";a:1:{s:11:"isPermaLink";s:5:"false";}}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:128:"Step into any college lecture and you’ll find a sea of students with laptops and tablets open, typing as the professor speaks.";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:32:"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/";a:1:{s:7:"creator";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:14:"Susan Dynarski";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:40:"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:11493:"<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-49680452" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext-aug17-evidencespeaks-laptops.jpg" alt="" width="690" />
Do computers help or hinder classroom learning in college? Step into any college lecture and you’ll find a sea of students with laptops and tablets open, typing as the professor speaks.
With their enhanced ability to transcribe content and look up concepts on the fly, are students learning more from lecture than they were in the days of paper and pen?
A growing body of evidence says “No.” When college students use computers or tablets during lecture, they learn less and earn worse grades. The evidence consists of a series of randomized trials, in both college classrooms and controlled laboratory settings.
Students who use laptops in class are likely different from those who don’t. They may be more easily distracted or less interested in the course material. Alternatively, they may be the most serious (or wealthiest) students who have invested in technology to support their learning.
Randomization assures us that, on average, the students using electronics in a study are comparable at baseline to those who do not. That means that any comparison we make of students at the end of the study is caused by the “treatment,” which in this case is laptop use.
In a series of laboratory experiments, researchers at Princeton and the University of California, Los Angeles had students watch a lecture, randomly assigning them either laptops or pen and paper for their note-taking. <a href="#_edn1">[1]</a> Understanding of the lecture, measured by a standardized test, was substantially worse for those who had used laptops.
Learning researchers hypothesize that, because students can type faster than they can write, a lecturer’s words flow straight from the students’ ears through their typing fingers, without stopping in the brain for substantive processing. Students writing by hand, by contrast, have to process and condense the material if their pens are to keep up with the lecture. Indeed, in this experiment, the notes of the laptop users more closely resembled transcripts than summaries of the lectures.
Taking notes can serve two learning functions: the physical storage of content (ideally, for later review) and the cognitive encoding of that content. These lab experiments suggest that laptops improve storage, but undermine encoding. On net, those who use laptops do worse, with any benefit of better storage swamped by worse encoding.
We could try to teach students to use their laptops better, nudging them to think about the material as they type. The researchers tried this in a second experiment, advising the laptop users that summarizing and condensing leads to more learning than transcription. This instruction had no effect on the results.
Students using laptops can also distract their classmates from their learning, another lab experiment suggests. <a href="#_edn2">[2]</a> Researchers at York and McMaster recruited students to watch a lecture and then tested their comprehension. Some students were randomly assigned to do some short tasks on their laptops during the lecture (e.g., look up movie times). Others were allowed to focus on the lecture. All seats were randomly assigned.
As expected, the multitasking students learned less than those focused on the lecture, scoring about 11 percent lower on a test. What is more surprising: the learning of students near the multitaskers also suffered. Students who could see the screen of a multitasker’s laptop (but were not multitasking themselves) scored 17 percent lower on comprehension than those who had no distracting view. It’s hard to stay focused when a field of laptops open to Facebook, Snapchat, and email lies between you and the lecturer.
These studies, like all lab experiments, took place under artificial circumstances. Students were paid to participate, lectures were unrelated to actual coursework, and performance on tests had no bearing on college grades. This controlled setting allowed researchers to carefully manipulate conditions and thereby try to tease out the mechanisms underlying the effect of laptop use on learning.
But what happens in a real classroom, over multiple lectures? Perhaps laptop-using students review and encode their notes later, after class. They might even perform better on assessments, since they have more accurate notes for review. Further, students might work harder to stay focused on the lecture, even in the face of distractions, when their grades are at stake.
To capture these real-world dynamics requires randomly assigning hundreds of college students to different classroom conditions. At the United States Military Academy (USMA), a team of researchers took on this task. <a href="#_edn3">[3]</a>
The USMA is a selective, liberal-arts college whose graduates go on to become officers in the US military. All students at the USMA take a semester-long, introductory economics class. The class is taught by professors in sections of no more than twenty students. Students in this introductory class all take the same multiple-choice and short-answer tests, which are administered online and graded automatically. This provides a consistent measure for comparisons of learning across sections.
The researchers randomly assigned these sections to one of three conditions: 1) electronics allowed, 2) electronics banned, and 3) tablet computers allowed, but only if laid flat on desks where professors could observe their use. Because professors at USMA teach multiple sections of the same class in a given semester, the researchers assigned each professor to more than one treatment condition.
At the end of the semester, students in the classrooms where electronics were allowed had performed substantially worse, with scores 0.2 standard deviations below those of the sections where electronics were banned. There was no discernible difference between sections where tablets were allowed (but restricted) and those where electronics were unrestricted.
In real-world education settings, a fifth of a standard deviation is a large effect. For example, the Tennessee STAR experiment found that children who were randomly assigned to smaller classrooms between kindergarten and third grade scored a fifth of a standard deviation higher than children in standard classrooms.
We can criticize the external validity of any of these studies. How relevant, after all, is the experience of cadets learning economics to community college students learning Shakespeare? But the evidence-based strategy is not to therefore ignore the studies but to consider the specific reasons that their results would or would not extrapolate to other settings.
The USMA authors argue compellingly that we would expect effects at other colleges to be, if anything, larger than those in their study. USMA courses are taught in small sections, where it is difficult for students to hide distracted computer use from their professors. Further, USMA students have strong incentives to perform, since class rank determines who gets the first pick of jobs after graduation.
The best way to settle this question of external validity, of course, is to replicate this experiment in more colleges. Until then, I find the existing evidence sufficiently compelling that I ban electronics in my classrooms.
Students with learning disabilities may need a laptop or tablet in order to participate in class. I (and every teacher I know) solicit and accommodate such requests. There is a loss of privacy, in that a student using a laptop is revealed as having a learning disability. This loss of privacy has to be weighed against the deterioration in learning that the other students suffer if laptop use is freely allowed.
Students may object that a laptop ban prevents them from storing notes on their computers. But free smartphone apps can quickly snap pictures of handwritten pages and convert them to PDF format. Even better: typing and synthesizing handwritten notes is a terrific way to review and check one’s understanding of a class.
There may well be particular classroom settings in which laptops improve learning. Perhaps a coding class, in which students collaborate on solving a programming problem. But for the typical lecture setting, the best evidence suggests students should lay down their laptops and pick up a pen.
— Susan Dynarski
<a href="https://www.brookings.edu/series/evidence-speaks/" target="_blank"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-49674002" src="https://www.educationnext.org/files/ednext-evidencespeaks-small.jpg" alt="ednext-evidencespeaks-small" width="125" /></a>Susan Dynarski is a professor of public policy, education and economics at the University of Michigan.
This post originally appeared as part of <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/series/evidence-speaks/" target="_blank">Evidence Speaks</a>, a weekly series of reports and notes by a standing panel of researchers under the editorship of Russ Whitehurst.
The author(s) were not paid by any entity outside of Brookings to write this particular article and did not receive financial support from or serve in a leadership position with any entity whose political or financial interests could be affected by this article.
<hr />
Notes:
<a name="_edn1"></a>1. Pam A. Mueller and Daniel M. Oppenheimer, “The Pen Is Mightier Than the Keyboard,” Psychological Science, Vol 25, Issue 6, pp. 1159 &#8211; 1168. First published date: April-23-2014. <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797614524581">http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797614524581</a>
<a name="_edn2"></a>2. Faria Sana, Tina Weston, Nicholas J. Cepeda, “Laptop Multitasking Hinders Classroom Learning for Both Users and Nearby Peers,” Computers &amp; Education, Volume 62, 2013, Pages 24-31. <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131512002254?via%3Dihub">http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131512002254?via%3Dihub</a>
<a name="_edn3"></a>3. Susan Payne Carter, Kyle Greenberg, Michael S. Walker, “The Impact of Computer Usage on Academic Performance: Evidence from a Randomized Trial at the United States Military Academy,” Economics of Education Review, Volume 56, 2017, Pages 118-132, <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272775716303454">http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272775716303454</a>. The What Works Clearinghouse has reviewed this study and given it its highest rating: <a href="https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/SingleStudyReviews/wwc_carter_022217.pdf">https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/SingleStudyReviews/wwc_carter_022217.pdf</a>.
<div class='shareaholic-canvas' data-app='share_buttons' data-title='For Better Learning in College Lectures, Lay Down the Laptop and Pick Up a Pen' data-link='https://www.educationnext.org/better-learning-college-lectures-lay-down-laptop-pick-up-a-pen/' data-summary='Step into any college lecture and you’ll find a sea of students with laptops and tablets open, typing as the professor speaks.' data-app-id='28510232' data-app-id-name='category_below_content'></div>";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:36:"http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/";a:1:{s:10:"commentRss";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:98:"https://www.educationnext.org/better-learning-college-lectures-lay-down-laptop-pick-up-a-pen/feed/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}s:38:"http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/";a:1:{s:8:"comments";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:1:"1";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:47;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:60:"