Here is an article from the Charleston S.C. newspaper.
-------------------
From the end of the article...
We need more individualizing, rather than just having one program that fits all. That's not working. We're just going to have to start breaking down to individual children to get the help they need. And children who are advanced ... do not need to sit through these boring classes all day long while we try to catch the others up. Then they get turned off. We want to get them excited.
Q: That sounds more expensive than "one size fits all," and you're already struggling for money.
A: Well, it is when you buy all this software, but at the very end of the day, it's a lot cheaper than re-educating children year after year. As far as the money is concerned, what we do is close down one program and start another. That's my philosophy here. Before we buy another program, you tell me what we're taking away because our teachers can't handle much more. So we need to streamline and make sure that we are using the most effective programs.
I know we have been accused of this, and often it's true, that public education has been reforming itself so many times and we keep reforming and getting the same results. But I'm not talking about those kind of reforms. I'm talking about taking what has worked for us in the past and trying to match it with what we see coming down the pike, what new directions we need to take to get us in position. We're going to have to do a better marketing job.
This guy spewed forth with a lot nonsense. There were a few little sensible tidbits if you dug deep enough.
ReplyDeleteQ: Are you convinced this new technology will be better than the old blackboard and chalk?
A: Today's children are so into technology, with the iPods and the iPhones. These children at 10 or 12 years of age have stuff that adults can't even afford to think about having. These kids are more and more savvy. So, yes, we've got to connect into that. At some point you have to change the way you do things. If we do it right on the front end, we're going to improve that graduation rate on the back end.
Joe Pye did not convince me with these statements. I guess I lack the deep understanding. I'm still scratching my head over this comment:
These children at 10 or 12 years of age have stuff that adults can't even afford to think about having.
I scratched my head at that also.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the reporter was accurate. I think probably not.
joe pye is a noxious weed. He's part of a tech consortium, so no surprise he thinks online education will stamp out ignorance. Why not think about the idiot textbooks that children have to read (but can't) everyday?
ReplyDeleteA textbook that can be read is:
ReplyDeleteA Blueprint for the foundations of Algebra by Matthew Peterson.
This is a great resource intervention needed in so many schools. This is part of the Algebra Readiness Program from the Mind Institute.
The difficulty that I have with standards are two things:
ReplyDelete1. Standards ignores student reading level.
2. standards approaches learning like an unfinished jigsaw puzzle. Imagine asking a teacher to assemble a roadmap that had been cut into 400 pieces and you had 180days to put it all together for your students so they too, could be proficient.
Next imagine the majority of students in your class had never in all their years been given a roadmap to reassemble that ever led anywhere other than the city boundary and which only amounted to a two block town.
Singapore standards included the curriculum. Singapore, unlike the US, decided to educate all its children with the best curriculum that also prepared its students for college. DOE, the reform textbook authors, and B can go get stuffed.