Wow, what an impressive post. I think you have nailed what needs to change and the need for casting aside the past.

Unfortunately, this change leaves the poor out, very few of my students have a Blackberry or web aware phone that they can afford to use in that way -- school is going to provide them? Over 50% of my students lack a computer w/internet access at home, is school going to provide that?

In schools, universities, and businesses, most input is still done by keyboard, its to early to give up keyboarding - but its a skill that students can learn on their own, so why don't we expect it, (of course, not for my students as they don't have access to computers much less realize that they can teach themselves).

Access to technology is a very big problem for lower income areas and differs even from school to school in the same district. How do you propose leveling the playing field?

Anyway, this is a post I may read to my teachers at the beginning of the year.

Thanks,

Provocative post, Ira. Tired of seeing tweets without substance on it, so I'll leave a thought here, though one maybe off-topic and maybe off-base, too.

It's this: the difference between the literacy technologies of our childhood - and I'm talking books, pencil and paper - and those Blackberries you mention of today is, to me, not insignificant: one (the Blackberry, and all the rest of today's gadgets) requires electricity, intact infrastructure, and all the trappings of an intact, peacetime civilization to both use and produce. The other - books, paper, pencil - do not. At least not to the same degree.

The world - especially the West - has seen Dark Ages more than once in its history, from the Dorians to the Vandals. I have this nagging feeling that we can't assume one won't return in the future.

The planet is certainly experiencing greater stress than ever before, so it's not unthinkable that abundant (or in worst cases, any) electricity might not be taken for granted.

Does that complicate putting all of our eggs in the electronics basket?

Put another way, aren't handwriting and books possibly, if not primary today, at least perennial despite that? The library will still be accessible, even if Washington follows Rome, know what I mean? The web might not.

It's 5 a.m., and I'll quite likely chuckle at this when I wake up later. But the thought was there.

Carl, Clay:

Two provocative apocalyptic thoughts in a row. Let me respond this way.

Carl, I do not think this leaves out the poor at all. I can buy - flat out, no contract - a phone with data capabilities for $100 bucks, and get a text/data/voice plan for $50/month. So, mobiles are the number one information device of the world's poor (more mobile numbers than humans in the UK, and a Pakistani friend tells me of their essential ubiquity in impoverished rural communities). It is, I might argue, the technologies of books and big computers with landline types of access which are brutally expensive. Public libraries - decent school libraries - are often truly rare - text messaging is cheap.

Will schools provide phones? Why not. I could probably hand out contract smart mobiles to every student for the cost of a typical school computer lab.

Clay, as the world found out at Alexandria, all our information eggs cannot be in one basket. No system is stable. Paper, surely paper 1820-2000, is radically unstable - and, of course, both flammable and really expensive to recover. Audio recodings suffer from constant media change. Film from deterioration. There's truly no escape.

This is the issue Socrates and Diogenes did not raise with literacy and writing. They correctly said it would play havoc with cognitive authority (faceless authors) and debase the value of memory. But they failed to predict that every information and communication technology we develop is fragile and societally dependent. Stone tablets, papyrus sheets, scrolls of sheepskin, books - well even our first ICT - language - can see vast quantities of information vanish when society collapses and a language is lost.

So, Yes and No. Yes, we need to store things multiple ways. But no, evidence suggests that the library will not be accessible if Washington follows Rome. You don't have to go way back. The first thing the German Army did upon invading Belgium in 1914 was to torch libraries.

- Ira Socol

Perhaps then connect schools to orgs like http://www.ctcnet.org

They have been activists in trying to level playing field for lower income communities.  Why not see if schools and/or individual kids can be connected? 

I know a few people involved in this effort.  Might be a way to give orgs like this mutual support with what you might want to do.

Here's the problem I have with your argument:  it essentially ignores content, which is what American students are deprived of in comparison with other countries' systems (including countries that make much better and more frequent use of technology in the classroom than we do).  There's brief mention of a "knowledge base" in one paragraph, but that's it. 

Where do they get this knowledge base?  When do they learn the language, history, science and math that are foundational to all other learning and clearly to functioning well in society?  You certainly would not be able to craft your cogent argument without training in language and logic, regardless of the 21st century skills that then allow you to post it, include links to other pages, and show up in my delicious.com popular bookmarks feed. 

And what is the "knowledge base"?  We can't finesse the content point with a wave of the hand.  Kids suffer when adults fail to take on the tasks of deciding what content kids need to know, and ensuring that kids then learn that content.  Do they all need to know the kind of basic vocabulary that allows them to read at "grade level"?  Do they all need to be able to do at least basic (i.e. 1-10) addition, subtraction, multiplication and division in their heads?  If they have these ready in their minds, for instance, they can move on to the more complicated and enjoyable tasks like thorny math problems and interesting metaphors and plot twists.  I assume you'd agree that it's better to have these kinds of basics "at-hand" even though they could be quickly googled -- just because we can look something up doesn't mean it's most efficient to have to do so.  Where are the countries of the world; where are the rivers; which countries used to think they owned which other countries?  These and other specifics really help us to be aware in the world, and to more fully engage in society and in creative endeavors.  It behooves us as the adults in society to decide more or less where the line is -- what facts, specifically, we'd like kids to know and not have to look up, so that they "get" the books, blogs, etc. that they read -- and then implement it by teaching those facts to kids in the schools.  Facts needn't have the bad reputation they currently suffer from in some quarters.  Will we get some of it wrong?  Sure -- we can't predict with 100% accuracy what they'll need to know.  But we have a pretty good idea, and we need to try.

Finally, where do skills fit in with learning the knowledge base?  Our general failure to successfully integrate computers and technology into the classroom has come about largely from a focus on teaching them separately from content.  Merely replacing computer lab time with wiki-construction time, keyboarding classes with texting classes, will only perpetuate the divide between skills and content, and will not teach kids what they need to know about either.

James,

As you point out, nations which make better use of technologies also seem to do better at content knowledge. Connected? or not? It's a complex issue.

American education struggles with a society which does not - in general - view education or knowledge as important. Witness Sarah Palin's level of popularity, or the election of 2000. Or stand in any school, where it is never a good thing to be perceived as the 'smartest' kid. Then witness the amazing amount of teacher bashing and professor bashing, at times even from the White House.

I ask this all the time - how many American adults could pass the British GCSEs -http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/ -, much less the A-Levels. UK kids are not organically smarter, nor is it just technology.

But we have to create engagement which works educationally for more than 25% of students, precisely because we have to work against the dominant culture - "math is hard," "history is stupid," "languages are un-necessary." And we need to do that using the efficiencies of contemporary technologies.

Will technology improve a kid's automaticity with the times table or spelling? I'd argue that it can, through personalized engagement. Can technology offer content knowledge access even if certain skill developments lag? I know - through my research - that non-readers can learn history, math, even writing with the right tech.

So tech, in my view, increases factual knowledge. It also allows a constant check of that knowledge. Math facts may stay fairly stable, but not the nations of Europe. Biological knowledge, chemical knowledge, changes constantly. We obviously need both, but a memorizer is not a person with a trustable education. A "finder" may be.

- Ira Socol

Ira,

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.  I absolutely agree that technology can improve automaticity.  My kids are using the spaced repetition in Supermemo to master their multiplication tables; they end up spending only a couple of minutes per day on it, but it's always on the combinations they need to focus on.  A nice side-effect (some would say this is the desired effect and the math knowledge is the side-effect, but on balance, I wouldn't agree) is the sense of excitement and confidence they get from mastering what looked hard at first.

You say that "a memorizer is not a person with a trustable education."  I think memorizing gets a bad rap. Perhaps it's a matter of timing -- automaticity in multiplication and spelling surely requires memorization -- and the memorizing needs to happen in the process of gaining background data, which ideally occurs when kids are young.  This makes sense in light of young children's seemingly inherent urge to memorize whatever they come in contact with (the Blues Clues song, Harry Potter dialogue, Pokemon point values) -- they often seem to have more enjoyment, even in play, when they've mastered the background data so that they can manipulate it.  They memorize something so that they can use it in real time.

"Memorizing" the nations of Europe may not be that helpful, but knowing about the ones that haven't changed (and the ones that have) will.  Today's (and the future's) events don't spring from nowhere; we live on the margin of history, even if that history takes what seems like a dramatic turn.  Sarejevo made a lot more sense in the 90s, and Iran makes a lot more sense now, to folks who know the history.  Can you look it up?  Sure.  But I've read stories by journalists who don't seem to have internalized what the Shia/Sunni split is about and has meant.  And it's the internalization process, the knowing of specifics about the background of a region, that can make a better "finder," one who knows when they need to look something up, and which looked-up things support or call into question the received wisdom.

Content and skills aren't either-or, but I think it's easy to slight content because it's so damn hard for folks to agree on the important content.  Take a look at most state standards and scope and sequence curricular guidelines and you'll see that, by and large, we're shirking our duty to say what kids need to know.  I am hopeful that if we can reach some agreement on foundational knowledge, new and future technologies can help students to learn it, so that they can move on to the more interesting stuff of critiquing and creating.

- James Mink

Thank you for a thought provoking post! There is a point that you make subtly, I think - that I believe needs to be stated more overtly. And I think that, in a way, it addresses Clay's concerns as well.

When you talk about abandoning the "one way" classroom, of teaching by modelling learning and how human communication and learning is changing as a result of technology - the important point in all of that is our recognition that learning is relationship based. And therefore, teaching our children how to connect with a network, to extend and create through conversation and collaboration (often with people around the world, as we're modelling right here!), to take information and make meaning - to me, that's the real point to changing education!

Yes, technology is an enormous piece of that in our world today. I moved recently and didn't have an internet connection for two weeks - that was a shock to my system, that's for sure!

But through Twitter and blogging and wikis and SMS (and more!), I've learned something that transcends my laptop, Blackberry, etc... I've learned how to find a diverse network of people, have authentic conversations, share my knowledge, collaborate, debate and together, create something bigger than I ever could have imagined alone!

Clay: even if technology disappears tomorrow, the best thing we will have done for our children (and future generations) is to have fully engaged them in empowered learning, building relationships and thinking creatively - and right now technology is one of the tools that facilitates that kind of education, so we need to use it! http://www.iwasthinking.ca/2008/10/09/its-not-about-the-technology/

And one small comment about content - I believe that short term memorization (i.e. I remember it only until I've finished the test) transforms to internalized (and useful) memorization only when the information is RELEVANT to my life! That's why kids can remember Pokemon points and Blues Clues songs yet struggle with their times tables or history dates! Yes, we need to agree on what content is foundational - AND we need to learn to teach it to (or learn it with) our children in ways that are meaningful to THEM, not just to us!

And that takes us back to Ira's post and the power of embracing today's technology to enable, engage and tranform classroom relationships!

Thanks for the conversation!

Heidi (HHG on Twitter)

The line that sticks with me from your post that I keep coming back to as I read each comment here in this thread is that most students are not successful in school.  I agree with you 100% that technology is everything people have invented.  This not only includes computers and books but procedural strategies for accomplishing things such as pedagogy as well.  You do a nice job of bringing this to light at the end of your post.  Reading through all of these comments I can't help but think of alternative pedagogies (i.e. technologies) that young people who are not successful in school are most engaged in.  I used to teach in an urban alternative school where many of my students were gang members.  These students were not successful in school though they did get an education.  I am sorry to say that the majority of their education did not come from school teachers nor was it an education sanctioned by the school district.  I also through the years have been involved in many online communities of interest.  Learning occurs there all the time.  Not all members of these communities were successful in school but within these communities were successful in becoming educated about certain things.  There is high quality education occurring in many places that we don't consider school:  boy and girl scouts, workplaces, church youth groups, 4H, Little League, gangs, internet chat rooms, YouTube, blogs, libraries, family interaction, etc.  In fact, the most relevant learnin for most people happens in one of hese other places of education and not in schools. 

If the goal for schools is to become the most relevant and useful place for education we need to harness the rhetorical draw of the gang, the personal significance of the family, the intrinsic nature of clubs and organizations like the Scouts and 4H, the relevance and applicability of the work place, and the openness of social media.  The only way to do this is to personalize the learning experience for each student.  This means that content will be as different from person to person as is the approach to teaching that content.

The other option is to look at these alternative sources of education and find a way to empower them with the same credentialing power schools have.  This may be the better solution to school change but I don't think any school system is willing to give up it's monopoly on content or grant that another institution is more effective at educating certian groups of students than they are. 

I will stop now, I feel my thoughts are starting to sound incoherent and slightly off topic.

Very well put, Ira.  As I have heard and like to repeat often 'I am still recovering from my education,' as it were.

A librarian I lecture on the topic of information literacy frequently, and like to tell my students to hear the phrase 'lifelong learning' in its place.  Sometimes I will project Moore's Law and emphasize the exponential rate of change.  More recently I feel as though the learning hinges on the interaction and whatever system and/or software can support it.

One important point to keep in mind is that very soon we will all be interacting with digital natives.  Not only will these students not be offset by the technology but they will expect it...

Thank you for your articulate and insightful blog post.  The comments from your readers are also extremely useful because I can use this conversation with my students to model how I learn from other educators.  This post will also allow me to have my students question the education they are receiving in preparation for a 21st Century world. 

Now the hard part is to offer my own opinion for my students to read as well, so I have written my thoughts in regards to the conversations posted on this page.

You mentioned in one of your comments that American adults would not fair well on British exams.  I concur, and I am impressed by the standards imposed on UK students and wish that our standards were just as challenging and included up-to-date assessments.  The NAEP, our nation's report card, will require in 2011 that American high school students must be able to use a word processing program to type out their written responses to literacy assessments.  Honestly?  Assessments really need to catch up to what students can accomplish, and what is really happening in the classroom.

Your comment on teaching cursive writing sparked a comment from my 18 year old.  I read it to her, and she said she wasted a whole year in 2nd grade learning cursive writing to have her middle school teachers tell her not to write in cursive because it was too hard to read.

Some of your readers question a reliance on computer technology because it is not readily available to all.  I realize that not all students have internet access and not all school districts are 1 to 1, but should educators ignore that we should be heading in that direction?  Eventually, America's school system should be able to provide computers and internet access to our students, so why not dream big and make it happen as quickly as we can. It seems like an excuse not to act when educators claim not all students have the same resources today.  I just can't accept no for an answer when it comes to my students.

Modeling how I learn and find information is always key.  You discussed this, and I cannot think of a better way to teach than to show my students how I make decisions and especially my mistakes. When a student offers valid suggestions as I struggle to find the best words for a thesis statement or the best content to include in my writing, I know I am doing my job well.

One of your readers commented about content knowledge, which has always worried me as a 9th grade teacher.  It frustrates me that students make it to high school with little background knowledge to help them understand allusions and the history of mankind.  This must be addressed at lower grade levels.  Additionally, do I think there is value in memorization?  Yes and no.  Somethings are meant to memorized, and some things are meant to be discovered and found.  Students memorize lines from movies and advertisments, and the same skills can be applied to memorizing lines from Shakespeare.  I believe my students do acquire a greater appreciation and a  sense of ownership when they memorize a soliloquy from Shakespeare.  It is still valuable to memorize, and it is a skill that should not be tossed just because information is so easily available.

Lastly, I am one of a few core teachers teaching in a computer lab and incorporating 21st Century skills in my district, but that is quickly changing.  My students often tell me that they feel like they are "doing something" in my class.  Students have complained to me that they usually sit and listen in core classes and do not remember much of what was said when the bell rings.  Students creating content and incorporating present day technology increases engagement.    I am fortunate that I work in a forward thinking school district that supports my classroom environment and encourages the teachers in our district to use 21st Century technology to raise the level of engagement.

Thank you Ira for your post that challenges educators at a pivotal point in which our system needs to dump the old ways and embrace a classroom allows students to become a part of their own education.