How I Missed Regular Sixth Grade

I did not take classes in sixth grade. I confess. I never completed a standard sixth grade course of study.

You see, I had Mr. Mein for sixth grade (that's pronounced ME-in, and the names in this post were not changed to protect the innocent). And he did not teach us anything all year. All we did was have fun, play games, hold parties, make wagers, and take adventures.

For example, he was expected to teach us writing and composition. Instead, he would turn it into some kind of competition. One time we were working with partners and creating our winter class play. Other scripts were exceptional, he pointed out. But my script was the one that was most appropriate for playing on stage in front of parents. Yes, I may have worked hard at writing my play, but it was all about the fun.

For another example, the curriculum required him to teach us about other nations such as the nation of Canada. Instead of him teaching us a darn thing. He had us play a game. We held a debate. Students were each asked to pick a province in Canada. Then small groups debated in front of class which province was the best place to live. (According to our sixth grade results, it was Quebec, by the way.) He was also supposed to teach us about Latin America. Instead, we planned a big party, and each culture had to be represented for how and what they celebrate. So we all enjoyed researching a particular nation and sharing with classmates how our findings would fit our class party. But he didn't teach us any of that.

Oh, there was one time he bet us that if we worked hard enough, he would take us on an extra field trip. We won the bet, and our field trip consisted of walking to the edge of my small Iowa hometown, looking at the corn and bean fields across the valley, and being told how important agriculture was to our way of life. It was kind of lame, but we did not care. We were sixth graders, and it was a field trip as far as we were concerned.

But I hardly remember any time all year that he taught us something, in the traditional sense of teaching.

Of course my point is that Mr. Mein was ultimately a talented instructor who had his students work together and teach each other. And he knew how to motivate kids. We had such fun and and were so highly engaged in our self-discovery that we never felt we were in a regular class. My wish for all students is for them to have a Mr. Mein who challenges them to learn for themselves and love what they are doing.

The PC versus Mac Debate Can End

Last month I had the honor of presenting to a number of school board members from across Iowa on the merits and implementation of one-to-one laptop computing in the modern school classroom. This was at the 66th Annual Convention of the Iowa Association of School Boards. I was impressed by all the thoughtful and conscientious citizens who are voluntarily serving their community schools for no pay and often considerable grief.

Much of my session was spent answering questions. I did not want to make a formal presentation, instead striving to make the time as relevant as possible for the participants. The most common questions I heard was, "Should a school purchase PC's or Macintosh computers for its one-to-one computer initiative?"

In response to this question, I emphasized the computer platform is the lesser part of the issue. The greater part is what the school is intending to do with the machines. Simple mathematics suggests that merely purchasing enough computers to have one for every student is the process for becoming a one-to-one school. However, this simple formula is missing the point. The computers need to fit the classroom objectives and methodologies, not the other way around. Deciding on a platform is ultimately influenced by what a school intends to do with the devices.

For our school, we wanted to create student-centered classrooms where the students are instructing themselves and each other. We wanted classrooms where the teachers are more guides to learning with the students the active participants in the class. Therefore, we wanted powerful machines that can access online resources and facilitate project-based learning. We want our students finding resources, comprehending the material, breaking down the information, and reassembling new knowledge. Therefore, we chose computers that could do audio projects, podcasting, and video production, in addition to some of the more standard functions available from most manufacturers.

The next question board members asked was usually this: "Yeah, but what if our teachers want Macintosh computers, yet nine out of ten computers in the business world are PC's?"

In my opinion, PC versus Mac operating systems is no longer much of a debate. The two systems have grown together over the last 20 years to the place where a person takes very little time to retrain for the opposite system. I made the change myself a few years back, and in less than a week, I felt completely comfortable in the new platform. Moreover, as computer operations move to more web-based systems and cloud computing, the type of computer becomes even less of an issue.

Ultimately, the operating system is a very small question. It is no longer worth debating. A much greater consideration is the performance ratings of the different machines and manufacturers. And again, it is more important what a school plans to do with their computers in order to choose a machine that meets its aim.

The Price is Right for Education Technology

If you are waiting to see what evolves in technology before implementing a major technology initiative in your school, your wait is over.

Technology has shown that the pace of change accelerates; it does not stabilize. (Maybe it is better stated your wait is futile.)

Likewise, if you are waiting for the price to drop because it is too expensive, you can stop waiting.

The price has already fallen to the point that makes technology initiatives affordable for schools. Nowhere is this better exemplified than in the falling cost of a gigabyte of storage as noted by Ivan Smith (Boing Boing by David Isenberg):

YEAR — Price of a Gigabyte
1981 — $300,000
1987 — $50,000
1990 — $10,000
1994 — $1000
1997 — $100
2000 — $10
2004 — $1
2010 — $0.10

So where is the price headed? A goal of industry is for computers to cost . . . wait for it . . . one dollar!

This means computers will be everywhere: carried on our persons, mounted into tools, installed in furniture, and sewn into the fabric of our garments. It will also make computers disposable. Of course we are not talking about computers with full monitors and keyboards (assuming keyboards continue to exist). We are referring to microcomputers with specific and limited functions.

A skeptic may doubt that one dollar computers are achievable. But consider the musical greeting card--the card you open and plays a popular tune or even sings to you. A single such card has as much computer power as existed in the world in the 1950's.

The point is that now is the time to invest in technology. The initial outlay for purchasing will be buoyed over time by the falling costs of subsequent additions and updates. This calls for a short-term expenditure rather than a long-term investment with significant, recurring costs.

Of course times are hard and budgets are stressed to the breaking point in a manner unprecedented in the last 70 years. Our nation's economy is a mess, but over the next few years it will rebuild. Now is the time to use this crisis to begin restructuring. Schools should begin by redesigning student-centered classrooms emphasizing inquiry learning. They should start training teachers in an instructional methodology facilitated by technology. This should lead to integrating technology into instruction. Schools should next pilot laptop learning in select classes, providing students with the research tools to facilitate inquiry learning. Finally schools should lay out a plan for full one-to-one implementation.

Though expensive, education technology is affordable; though futuristic, it is contemporary; though extraneous, it is essential. The time is now.

Schools Need to Fix More than What is Broken

The U.S. system of public education is not broken. Not broken.

Our system provides the United States with the highest standard of living on Earth. The United Nations in November released its Human Development Report for 2010. The Human Development Index (HDI) places the United States well ahead of all the nations whose students may have scored higher than ours on standardized tests. Our nation is the envy of the world, and it is our system of public education that helped to create it.

There is an expression: "If it's not broken, don't fix it." I heard this as a boy and thought it clever, "That makes sense. Why do we try to fix things that don't need fixing?"

I now loathe the words. I have heard the expression as a continuous mantra from those who wish to maintain the status quo. We have a good system, yes. But it could be better. It must be made better.

We can do this by moving our schools into 21st Century learning institutions. We need to reduce our drop-out rate by individualizing instruction. We need to develop students who are both independent problem solvers and cooperative team players. We need to teach our students to teach themselves by utilizing Inquiry Learning and Active Learning. We need to foster the use of technology in achieving our educational objectives.

Most importantly and immediately, we need to get on with the work at hand. Yes, our budgets are handicapping us, but we must stop fixating on finances. The economic conditions are what they are. We must also remember we have seen good times too. We have to adapt our services to the resources at hand and realize that the world is changing. Schools must evolve and get better.

Our students need schools focused on the future of our world, not the present school budget. Our work of building a brighter tomorrow cannot be slowed by trying to maintain schools as we have known them or by using our financial resources as an excuse. This work is just too important.