Rebirth of the Teaching Machine through the Seduction of Data Analytics: This Time It's Personal

This was written by Phil McRae who is an executive staff officer with the Alberta Teachers` Association. Dr. Phil McRae’s Biography, Research, Writing, Scholarship and Presentations can be found at www.philmcrae.com, and you can follow him on Twitter here. This post first appeared here.

by Phil McRae

Postcard from the World's Fair in Pairs -- Circa 1899 A Futuristic Image of Learning
"At School in the Year 2000' Image Source via Wikimedia Commons

Notions of mechanized teaching machines captured the imagination of many in the late 19th and 20th century. Today, yet again, a new generation of technology platforms promise to deliver “personalized learning” for each and every student. This rebirth of the teaching machine centers around digital software tutors (known as adaptive learning systems) and their grand claims to individualize learning by controlling the pace, place and content for each and every student. This time around it is personal.

Personal choice, with centralized control, in an increasingly data driven, standardized and mechanized learning system, has long been a fantasy for many technocrats desperately wanting to (re)shape K-12 teaching and learning with technology. In this alternate reality, class sizes no longer matter and new staffing patterns emerge. The amount of time students spend in schools becomes irrelevant as brick and mortar structures fade away. Yet this fantasy disregards the overwhelming parental desire (and societal expectation) that children will gather together to learn.

Technologies have amplified our desires for choice, flexibility and individualization in North America, so it is easy to be seduced by a vision of computers delivering only what we want, when, and how we want it customized. The marketing mantra from media conglomerates to banks is that of 24/7 services at any time, in any place or at any pace. Many governments have in turn adopted this language in an eagerness to reduce costs with business-like customization and streamlined workforce productivity - all with the expectation that a flexible education system will also be more efficient and (cost) effective.

The adaptive learning system crusade in schools is organized, growing in power and well-funded by venture capitalists and corporations. Many companies are looking to profit from student (and teacher) data that can be easily collected, stored, processed, customized, analyzed, and then ultimately (re)sold. Children and youth should not be treated like automated teller machines or retail loyalty cards from which companies can extract valuable data.

Adaptive learning systems (the new teaching machines) do not build more resilient, creative, entrepreneurial or empathetic citizens through their individualized, linear and mechanical software algorithms. Nor do they balance the desire for greater choice, in all its manifest forms, with the equity needed for a society to flourish. Computer adaptive learning systems are reductionist and primarily attend to those things that can be easily digitized and tested (math, science and reading). They fail to recognize that high quality learning environments are deeply relational, humanistic, creative, socially constructed, active and inquiry-oriented.

This article paints a picture of how old notions of teaching machines are being reborn through a seduction of data analytics and competency-based personalization (think individualization). It is also intended to be a declaration against the fatalism of adaptive learning systems as the next evolutionary stage for K-12 education in the 21st Century.

The History

For generations various devices have been patented to mechanically teach students. The first popular attempt was in the 1920s when Sidney Pressey (1926) invented a machine that would run on two modes of operation: ‘teach’ and ‘test’. After reading through material in the teach mode, a student would flick the control to test and proceed to pull down one of four response keys. To give the illusion of progress, the machine would score the response and wondrously record the total number of correct answers. A ‘reward dial’ could also be added so that when a correct number of responses were achieved, a piece of candy would drop into a small dish for the student (think Pavlov’s dog). It was simply a multiple choice test in a mechanical box.

Pressey’s machine was born in an age where managerial approaches to controlling and sequencing learning were popular. It was a time of efficiency where the industrial assembly line had introduced innovative technologies, increased competition, and inspired new efforts to (re)organize companies. The industrialist Fredrick Taylor (1911) was especially influential to the teaching machine movement. His concepts of scientific management drew on studies of assembly line workers and proposed new methods for managers to speed up efficiency and productivity through a process of measurement and control. It was an era that privileged behaviourism (i.e., stimulus and response). At this time Edward Thorndike’s (1921) popular book on Principles of Learning stressed that people all learned in the same basic way through individual practice and reinforcement.

However, it was not until the 1950s, that psychologist B. F. Skinner made the bold claim that the dawn of the machine age of education had finally arrived. With his particular brand of teaching machines and programmed learning he vowed that, “students could learn twice as much in the same time and with the same effort as in a standard classroom” (Oppenheimer, 1997). Skinner would go on to say that his machine had an important advantage over past attempts because a student was “free to move at his own pace [and]…only moves on when he has completely mastered all the preceding material…to a final stage in which he is competent.” (Skinner, 1954). For Skinner, learning was about measurability, uniformity, and control of the student. This view of learning dismissed the larger social, cultural and emotional contexts in which knowledge is created.



The next big lurch forward came from the artificial intelligence movement of the 1970s. This era reinforced behaviourist notions while introducing research in the unfolding field of computer science. This gave rise to Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI) projects like PLATO (Programmed Logic for Automated Teaching Operations).

CAI treated students like patients who once diagnosed through computer testing and task analysis could be prescribed individual remediation by the software. But, the software development costs for CAI were high, and computers (both personal and school-based) were rare and expensive. Ultimately, the artificial intelligence of the computers was never really that intelligent. Once again the teaching machines receded into the storage room.

PLATO (Programmed Logic for Automated Teaching Operations)

In 2013, Dreambox Learning Inc., a technology company out of the United States, claims that their proprietary intelligent adaptive learning (IAL) system, has the “effectiveness comparable to human tutoring [and] accelerates math teaching and learning” (Dreambox Learning Inc., 2013). The company’s contracted research white paper unflinchingly states, “the level of sophistication of today’s IAL systems is far superior to similar technologies of the past” (Lemke, 2013, p. 13). This particular brand of teaching machine individualizes learning by adjusting “path and pace to stay within the child’s zone of optimized learning to accelerate understanding and critical thinking” (Dreambox Learning Inc., 2013).

It is as if we are caught in an ever renewing cycle of promises, or as Yogi Berra once observed, “It’s déjà vu all over again” (Berra, 2004). Adaptive learning systems still promote the notion of the isolated individual, in front of a technology platform, being delivered concrete and sequential content for mastery. However, the re-branding is that of personalization (individual), flexible and customized (technology platform) delivering 21st century competencies (content).

At its most innocent it is a renewed attempt at bringing back behaviourism and operant conditioning to make learning more efficient. At its most sinister; it establishes children as measurable commodities to be cataloged and capitalized upon by corporations. It is a movement that could be the last tsunami that systematically privatizes public education systems.

The Seduction

So why is this movement so seductive? First, it is seen as opening up possibilities for greater access to data that can be used to hyper-individualize learning and in turn diagnose the challenges facing entire school systems. Second, the modern teaching machines, and the growing reach and power of technologies, promises to (re)shape students into powerful knowledge workers of the 21st Century.

For publishers and educational technology companies, the adaptive learning systems are a means to ‘atomize’ students (and their data) away from the shelter and protection of public education systems. It allows them to create long-term ‘personal’ relationships with students, so they can market their products over the student’s lifetime. It prevents materials from being shared or transferred over time as the materials are all digitized and copyright protected. It allows for direct marketing of products and services at any time, place or pace to students or their families.

For teachers, adaptive learning systems are sold as providing easy ways to bump test scores for each and every student, while generating detailed individual student reports through the software’s surveillance structures. Companies market their algorithms as not only teaching better, but also freeing up teachers’ time and relieving their burdens in a world of test-based accountability. Just as Pressey (1926) stated almost a century ago, the machine will “make her [teacher] free for those inspirational and thought-stimulating activities which are, presumably, the real function of the teacher” (p. 374).

For parents, this is an extension of the growth in the tutoring movement. It is estimated that one third of Alberta parents now pay for private tutors (Alberta Teachers’ Association, 2011). As the Canadian Council on Learning (2007) found in their national survey, “most parents who hire tutors (73%) estimate that their children's overall academic performance is in the A or B range”. This is a global obsession, and in 2010 74% of all South Korean students were engaged in some form of private after-school instruction, at an average cost of $2,600 per student for the year (Ripley, 2011).

Adaptive learning systems are seductive to a North America society reeling from economic volatility and decline. It is a time where the middle class is rapidly shrinking. Parents are obsessively enrolling their children in after-school programs or tutoring with a fanatic devotion to giving their offspring a competitive edge over the pack. Hyper-parents are investing more time, money and energy in their offspring than in previous generations, and adaptive learning systems may be seen as one more tool on the treadmill to Harvard. As Carl Honore (2008) says, “It is not just kids who are under pressure now; it’s parents too. We feel we have to push, polish and protect our offspring with superhuman zeal - or else we’re somehow falling down on the job. We start from the noble and natural instinct to do the best for our kids but end up going too far. Social and cultural pressure drives a lot of this”.

This has resulted in some dramatic consequences for childhood. Since the late 1970s, children have lost 12 hours per week of free time, including a 25% decrease in play and a 50% decrease in unstructured outdoor activities. (Juster et al., 2004). Parents are working longer hours and families are spending less time with their children (Parkland Institute, 2012). The adaptive learning algorithm, wondrously sold as virtual tutor, could also become a convenient digital baby rattle.

For students frustrated with working in a group setting, or having to negotiate the diversity of a public school setting, the teaching machine provides relief. The new teaching machine becomes the panacea for students who are struggling academically or irritated by the pace of learning in schools. Yet, as Hargreaves and Shirley (2009) suggest: “Customized learning is pleasurable and instantly gratifying. Nevertheless it . . . ultimately becomes just one more process of business-driven training delivered to satisfy individual consumer tastes and desires” (p. 84).

There are no quick fixes to learning and teaching. Excellence in life, and with all complex activities, takes time and patience. This time is what Malcom Gladwell (2008) calls the ten thousand hour rule, where “researchers have settled on what they believe is the magic number for true expertise: ten thousand hours” (pp. 40). Although seductive, data analytics and algorithms of the software that magically determine the pacing, path, or content for the learner, do not reinforce this type of dedication for true expertise.

Educational technology companies and publishers are rushing to colonize the big data and personalized learning revolution. In the United States the trajectory of education is one of increased standardization, centralization and adaptive learning systems. Far too seldom are the conversations about fostering creativity, the arts, talent diversity, or interpersonal communicative competencies for children and youth. Big data and personalized learning is the next tsunami.

The Context

Big Data

In this first quarter of the 21st Century people have become deeply (inter)connected with machines. These connections have blurred the boundaries between our online and offline behaviours. The location data from our cellphones, information from credit card purchases, retail loyalty card transactions, medical records, or even the dynamics of our online social media connections can now be tracked and traced. Essentially we are leaving digital breadcrumbs around our increasingly connected lives. Data about our existence is consequently growing at an exponential rate.

As our personal data grows, so does the desire to have it harvested for patterns. With the ability to track social connections and economic habits down to the individual level, micro-patterns emerge. People (and their data) become “atomized”, behaviours are tracked in real-time, and then compared with millions of other individuals. With more powerful computing technologies large data sets may even hold the power of prediction (think Amazon book recommendations, but for personal health). This is known as the ‘big data’ phenomenon.

‘Big Data’ is about finding the seemingly hidden connections within a population or even from our own (learning) behaviours. Companies, and some governments, are beginning to see these big data insights as holding the potential to provide new products, redesign systems and personalize services.

As data gathering increases across society, and we crank out even more information about our behaviours, companies look to one of the last frontiers to privatize: student and teacher data. With access to big data on student populations, companies would have limitless opportunities to increase profits and growth. However in public systems, with democratic governance, it is difficult to get access to the intimate data on students and teachers. Public school jurisdictions often frustrate businesses as they try to direct marketing (and hyper-personalize) their products to students, parents and teachers.

This may all change with inBloom Inc., a $100 million dollar K-12 education data-sharing initiative launched in the early parts of 2013 by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation of New York. inBloom Inc. is a database containing personal student information that will reportedly allow sharing of the data with 21 for-profit companies. As reported in Reuters (Simons, 2013) “In operation just three months, the [inBloom Inc.] database already holds files on millions of children identified by name, address and sometimes social security number. Learning disabilities are documented, test scores recorded, attendance noted. In some cases, the database tracks student hobbies, career goals, attitudes toward school - even homework completion. Local education officials retain legal control over their students' information. But federal law allows them to share files in their portion of the database with private companies selling educational products and services.”

Two concerns have arisen from this big data development in K-12 education. The first is that Amplify Education Inc., a for-profit division of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, built the database infrastructure for inBloom Inc.. Murdoch is well known with the ongoing personal wiretapping and hacking scandal of one of his companies, and he has openly articulated his interests in profiting off K-12 education: “When it comes to K through 12 education we see a $500 billion sector in the U.S. alone that is waiting desperately to be transformed by big breakthroughs that extend the reach of great teaching” (Murdoch, 2010).

Second, parents in New York were not made aware that their children’s personal information could be shared with for-profit private technology companies without their consent. And as with the state of data security in our times, inBloom Inc. “cannot guarantee the security of the information stored … or that the information will not be intercepted when it is being transmitted” (Simons, 2013). The Electronic Privacy Information Center has subsequently filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education charging it with violating student privacy rights and undermining parental consent (Strauss, 2013a). In Louisiana, the State Superintendent John White recently made an announcement that he would be recalling all confidential student data from inBloom Inc. (Leader, 2013).

Issues of privacy, data access, and who actually owns student and teacher data will grow enormously in the next few months. There can be value in having big data analyzed to discover new patterns, but not at the expense of removing privacy protections for students in a public education system.

Data Driven Decision Making

The professional work of teaching and learning has used data and evidence to improve educational decision making for years. Even ‘big data’ and its power can be used to help redesign a public system, as long as teachers, principals, parents give clear consent to its various ethical uses to improve student learning. Data is key to empowering and generating educational growth and insight for teachers. In fact data and evidence generated through teacher action research was a hallmark of the internationally recognized Alberta Initiative for School Improvement (AISI) for over a decade. Ironically we have more data on student assessments, and fewer opportunities for deep conversations between parents and teachers.

The right data, meaningfully and thoughtfully used, could enhance individual and collective teacher efficacy. The same data could also be used by system leaders for narrow accountability regimes and punitive action. In the United States, mandates created under the “Race to the Top” initiatives, and programs promoted by the Gates Foundation, have led to more data attempting to measure teacher effectiveness than ever before. As a society we have become obsessed with data quantity, but in many ways have fallen short on the quality of our human interactions. 

Personalized Learning

Personalized learning is neither a pedagogic theory nor a coherent set of teaching approaches; it is an idea struggling for an identity (McRae, 2010). A description of personalization of learning tightly linked to technology-mediated individualization ‘anywhere, anytime’ is premised on old ideas from the assembly line era. It is a model that is being advanced by the rapidly growing private corporations, virtual schools and charter school in the United States.

Personalizing learning, as an act of differentiating learning in a highly relational environment, is not new to the profession of teaching. Legions of teachers enter classrooms to engage diverse minds across multiple activities and to support each student as he or she inquires into problems. These same teachers, who hold a keen awareness of each of their student’s particular learning styles and passions, are also simultaneously contending with issues of poverty, lack of parental involvement (or conversely helicopter parents), large classes, familial and community influences, student effort and numerous digital and popular culture distractions that add to complexity of their professional practice.

Personalizing learning can be a progressive stance to education reform, and is in line with many new forms of assessment, differentiated learning and instruction, and redesigning high schools beyond age cohorts and classes. More flexible approaches to education are undeniably necessary, and findings ways to personalize learning will be important if students are to adequately develop the skills and knowledge that will help them creatively navigate an uncertain future. However, personalized learning defined as an isolated child in front of a computer screen for hours on end is folly.

The Enablers

To enable this all to happen in an education system, several policies must be enshrined by governments and school districts that allow publishers or educational technology companies direct access to students. The first is to open up multiple pathways of learning, which are more flexible in terms of time and space, and designed around technology solutions that only the company can deliver. On the surface this flexibility sounds promising, as teachers and school leaders certainly recognize that the industrial model of command and control does not fit with our hyper-connected world. Unfortunately, the flexibility of anytime, any pace learning is manifesting itself in the United States around adaptive learning software programs or mandatory online learning courses that are being delivered by private companies.

The U.S. Department of Education (2013) has clearly articulated a commitment to making this happen with ‘Competency-Based Learning’ or ‘Personalized Learning’: “Transitioning away from seat time, in favor of a structure that creates flexibility, allows students to progress as they demonstrate mastery of academic content, regardless of time, place, or pace of learning. By enabling students to master skills at their own pace, competency-based learning systems help to save both time and money…make better use of technology, support new staffing patterns that utilize teacher skills and interests differently…Each of these presents an opportunity to achieve greater efficiency and increase productivity.”

The notion of creating new staffing patterns has evolved in the United States to redefine and expand the role of ‘teacher’. The new staffing patterns with this model have shown to reduce the teaching force to a 1 to 150 pupil teacher ratio with the monitoring of students in computer labs, tutoring and marking supported by non-certificated staff with titles like ‘Coaches’, ‘Facilitators’ or ‘Individual Learning Specialists’. In the case of K12 Inc., the United States largest provider of online education for grades K-12, it is reported that student teacher ratios are as high as 1 teacher to 275 students (Aaronson and O’Connor, 2012). The Software & Information Industry Association, the principal trade association for the software and digital content industries in America, is a clear backer of redefining and expanding the role of the teacher, and advocates that “teacher contracts and other regulatory constraints may also need to be addressed to provide the flexibility in a teacher’s role needed to make this dramatic shift in instruction” (Wolf, 2010, p. 15).

The Challenges

1. Commodification of Student Data: 

Public schools must be the guardians of students' personal data. Teachers, as the guardians of children, cannot collect ‘big data’ without parental consent and then advertently allow it to be passed on to companies looking for a new marketplace in public education. With adaptive learning systems companies can market directly to the individual student or parents, without the obstructions (or guidance) of a robust public education system.

The data analytics crusade in schools, and issues of who owns and controls the ‘big data’ of children and youth, must be highly contested.

2. Reductionist Thinking: 

Adaptive learning systems can divert teacher and student attention to only the ‘basics’ of math and reading. In some cases even privileging just one curricular area. As DreamBox Learning Inc. forcefully states in direct emails to parents: “Research has shown that mastery of early math skills is the single best predictor of future academic success - more important even than early reading!” (McRae, personal communication, January 28, 2013).

In respecting individuality and difference, we need to move education systems towards actions that Yong Zhao (2009) says will provide “more diverse talents rather than standardized labourers, more creative individuals rather than homogenized test takers, and more entrepreneurs rather than obedient employees.” (p. 181). A narrowing of cognition through the teaching machine will not build the kind of confidence, social agility, cooperation and creativity that children growing up in post-industrial society need. As Dewey (1938) said, “Education is not preparation for life; education is life itself.”

3. Learning is Socially Constructed:

Research out of the learning science makes it clear that learning is successful when it is socially constructed, and occurs in an active and inquiry-oriented process that engages people in social, emotional, cultural and deeply intrapersonal experiences. This research will likely hold true whether our future learning environments are enacted face to face, online or in blended learning online/offline contexts as this carbon and silicon line begins to blur. It also holds true regardless of whether one is considered digitally literate or whether one is a member of the New Millennial Generation (Gen M).

4. Adaptation:

There is much good in providing opportunities for students to have more personalized experiences with learning, but the world does not adapt to people, we must adapt to the world. To adapt, and be able to bounce back from adversity, which is a central part of the human condition, we must build resilience in our children and youth.

Zolli and Healy (2012) define resilience as “the capacity of a system, enterprise, or a person to maintain its core purpose and integrity in the face of dramatically changed circumstances,” and see resilience as “preserving adaptive capacity (p. 8)—the ability to adapt to changed circumstances while fulfilling one’s core purpose, which is an essential skill in an age of unforeseeable disruption and volatility” (p.9). Resilience not only builds encourages adaptability, but it also strengthens 21st Century collaborative skills, connectivity and an appreciation of diversity in the world around us. Resilience is not shaped through teaching machines, but it is through highly relational learning environments. It will be especially important in global world defined by increased volatility, ambiguity, uncertainty and complexity.

5. Echo-Chamber Effect: 

We are entering a digital age of mobility where students can access the information they want at any time, place or pace through a variety of devices. This will have a profound effect on critical thinking as individuals are increasingly fed only the exact type of information (specific political views, topical book themes, local environmental conditions) and sources (individual blogs, twitter feeds, facebook updates, or websites) to which they digitally subscribe. In many ways, hyper-personalized (customized) digital spaces have the potential to limit students to only the content that they want to see, hear and read about. A condition can then arise in online communities where participants find their own opinions constantly echoed back to them (i.e., echo-chamber effect), thus reinforcing a certain sense of truth that resonates with their individual belief systems (McRae, 2006).

This then challenges a call for a diversity of talents, and positions free will and personal choice as taking on new (and obscured) meanings in digital echo chambers. In considering personalization and technology, we need to be thoughtful about the role of critical thinking, diversity and chance (serendipity). These are all important for learning and will have long-term implications for society.

6. Children and Screen Time: 

To what extent do we want children and youth spending even more time immersed in adaptive learning software programs during the school day? A growing body of research indicates children between the ages of 8 to 18 already spend an average of 7.5 hours a day in front of screens (e.g., television, computers, video-games and phones) (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2010). To gather data through adaptive learning systems, children will need to spend time allowing the machine to monitor their interactions. John Danner, former C.E.O. of Rocketship Charter Schools and a member of the Board of Directors of DreamBox Learning Inc., envisions even more screen time during the day for children: “As the quality of software improves, Danner thinks “Rocketeers” could spend as much as 50 percent of the school day with computers” Strauss (2013b).

Those who work with children, families, schools and communities are asking serious questions about the effects of online digital activities on health and mental well-being. In regards to the software as tutor at home, we should be particularly concerned with late-night screen time and research that indicates it can decrease sleep quality and quantity and negatively affect children’s readiness to learn. How many hours are we willing to sacrifice for more individualized computer-human interactions under the guise of data analytics?

A Better Path

There are no simple computerized solutions to the complex and diverse challenges of poverty and inequity, or lack of parental engagement (conversely hyper-parenting) facing schools. In an effort to continually improve educational practices and create great schools for all students, what might be a better path to the seduction of adaptive learning systems?

We can establish conditions of professional practice where high quality teachers and principals, with a sense of efficacy, can differentiate instruction and advance new forms of assessment for learning with/without technology. Teachers could be engaged in a conversation, earlier rather than later, around how they might use data (big or small) to enhance student learning.

Technologies could be employed to help students become empowered citizens rather than passive consumers. Innovations are needed in education that will help to create a society where people can flourish within culturally rich, informed, democratic, digitally connected and diverse communities. We should not descend into a culture of individualism through technology, where people are fragmented by a continuous partial attention.

The education of our next generations should not be about machines but, rather, a community of learners whose physical, intellectual and social well-being is held sacred. This point of view is driven by the human desire to connect, maintain friendships, tell stories, share thoughts and inquire into the nature of the world. It is a perspective that naturally flows together with the research on learning that suggests that education is not just about content or physical place but also a collective and highly relational set of experiences within a community of learners.

Emerging technologies and smart data certainly have a place in educational transformation, but they must be employed to enhance what research in the learning sciences continues to reinforce as the foundation of learning: the pedagogical relationships between students, teachers, parents and community. Attempts to displace this human dimension of learning with the teaching machine (whatever you imagine this to be) is a distraction to the most important support great schools can offer students each and every day – relationships, relationships, relationships.

References

Aaronson T. and O’Connor J. (2012). In K12 courses, 275 students to a single teacher. Miami, FL: Miami Herald. Retrieved from:http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/09/16/3005122/in-k12-courses-275-students-to.html

Alberta Teachers’ Association (2011). Changing Landscapes for Learning Our Way to the Next Alberta. Edmonton, AB: Barnett House. Retrieved from:http://www.teachers.ab.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/ATA/News-Room/2011/Changing%20LandscapesOctober2011_Proof2.pdf

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing Company.

Dreambox Learning Inc., (2013). Adaptive learning: Intelligent Adaptive Learning. Bellevue, WA: DreamBox Learning Inc. Retrieved from:http://www.dreambox.com/adaptive-learning

Berra, Y. (2004). Yogi Berra: Yogi-isms. Little Falls, NJ. Retrieved from:http://www.yogiberra.com/yogi-isms.html

Canadian Council on Learning (2007). Survey of Canadian Attitudes toward Learning: Canadian attitudes toward tutoring. Vancouver, BC: Canadian Council on Learning. Retrieved from: http://www.ccl-cca.ca/ccl/Reports/SCAL/2007Archive/SCALStructuredTutoring.html

Eisner, E. (1994). The Educational Imagination: On the Design and Evaluation of School Programs, Third Edition, New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Gladwell M. (2008). Outliers: The story of success. New York, NY: Little, Brown & Company.

Hargreaves, A. and D. Shirley. 2009. The Fourth Way: The Inspiring Future for Educational Change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Juster, F.T., Ono, H., & Stafford, F. (2004). Changing times of American youth: 1981-2003. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. Retrieved from: http://www.umich.edu/news/Releases/2004/Nov04/teen_time_report.pdf

Kaiser Family Foundation (2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8–18 year olds.Menlo Park, CA: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

Lemke, C. (2013). Intelligent adaptive learning: An essential element of 21st century teaching and learning. Bellevue, WA: DreamBox Learning Inc.

McRae, P. (2010). The politics of personalization in the 21st century. Alberta Teachers' Association Magazine 1 (91): 8-11. Edmonton, AB: Barnett House.

McRae, P. (2006). Echoing voices - emerging challenges for educational practice on the internet. In T. Reeves & S. Yamashita (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2006 (pp. 2622-2629). Chesapeake, VA: American Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

News Corporation (2010). News corporation to acquire education technology company wireless generation. Washington, DC: Press Release. Retrieved from:http://www.newscorp.com/news/news_464.html

Leader, B. (2013). Superintendent John White recalls student data stored with nonprofit inBloom. Monroe, LA: The News Star. Retrieved from:http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/20130419/NEWS01/130419017/Superintendent-John-White-recalls-student-data-stored-nonprofit-inBloom?nclick_check=1

Parkland Institute (2012). Family day on the treadmill: Alberta families at risk of too much stress. Edmonton, AB: Retrieved from:http://parklandinstitute.ca/research/summary/family_day_on_the_treadmill

Pressey, S. L. (1926). A simple apparatus which gives tests and scores-and teaches.School and Society, 23(586):373–376.

Skinner, B. F. (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 24: 86-97.

Simon, S. (2013). K-12 student database jazzes tech startups, spooks parents. New York, NY: Thomson Reuters U.S. Edition. Retrieved from:http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/03/us-education-database-idUSBRE92204W20130303

Strauss, V. (2013a). Lawsuit charges Ed Department with violating student privacy rights. Washington, DC: Washington Post. Retrieved from:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/03/13/lawsuit-charges-ed-department-with-violating-student-privacy-rights/

Strauss, V. (2013b). Rocketship charter schools revamping signature ‘learning lab’. Washington, DC: Washington Post. Retrieved from:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/01/25/rocketship-charter-schools-revamping-signature-learning-lab/

Ripley, A. (2011 September 25). Teacher, leave those kids alone. Time Magazine. New York, NY: Time Inc. Retrieved from:http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2094427,00.html

U.S. Department of Education (2013). Competency-based learning or personalized learning. Washington, DC: United States Government. Retrieved from:http://www.ed.gov/oii-news/competency-based-learning-or-personalized-learning

Wolf, M.A. (2010, November). Innovate to educate: system [re]design for personalized learning: A report from the 2010 Symposium. Software & Information Industry Association in collaboration with ASCD and the Council of Chief State School Officers. Washington, DC: Software & Information Industry Association. Retrieved from:http://siia.net/pli/presentations/PerLearnPaper.pdf

Zhao, Y. (2009). Catching Up or Leading the Way: American Education in the Age of Globalization. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Zolli, A. & Healy, A. M. (2012). Resilience: Why things bounce back. New York, NY: Freepress.

Bill Gates and the Cult of Measurement: Efficiency Without Excellence

This was written by Anthony Cody who spent 24 years working in Oakland schools, 18 of them as a science teacher at a high needs middle school. Cody tweets here and blogs here. This post was originally found here.

by Anthony Cody

Bill Gates' annual letter came out last week, and can be read here.

A preview of his letter stated this:

This year, my letter focuses on the catalytic role that measurement can play in reducing hunger, poverty, and disease. Setting goals and measuring progress are obviously not new ideas. But over the last year, I've really been struck by the impact this can have improving the lives of the poorest.

Measurement has been central to the Gates vision for improving schools in the US as well. But this approach has not, in my view, improved the lives of the poorest among our students.

Ever since the passage of No Child Left Behind in 2001, school reform has been driven by measurement and numerical goals. But unfortunately for the poor, we are not measuring what matters most, nor are our responses to the measurements truly helpful.

Mathematician Cathy O'Neil has offered an interesting critique of the Gates method of solutions via measurement. She writes:

...the person who defines the model defines success, and by obscuring this power behind a data collection process and incrementally improved model results, it seems somehow sanitized and objective when it's not.

Don't be fooled by the mathematical imprimatur: behind every model and every data set is a political process that chose that data and built that model and defined success for that model.

There is an old saying, "when your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." In our schools, standardized tests are our hammers, and as Cathy O'Neil points out, the standards and the tests that measure what has been learned have lots of questionable assumptions built in.

In his letter, Bill Gates draws an appealing portrait of how teaching is being improved at Eagle Valley High School in Vail, Colorado. Reflecting the findings of the Gates Foundation's Measures of Effective Teaching project, he points out that they focus on "several measures that schools should use to assess teacher performance, including test data, student surveys and assessments by trained evaluators."

Unfortunately, a closer look at their research shows that the way these various models are validated is by the degree to which they align with test scores. This is circular, as Bruce Baker explains in some detail here.

And Gary Rubinstein has gone even further, digging into the data available from Eagle Valley High. He concludes, "Perhaps there still is a miracle district out there proving that these reforms are working, but as far as I can tell Eagle County, Colorado isn't it."

We could choose to measure other things, of course. The idea of measurement is not useless. The trouble is that some of the things we truly value are harder to measure, and so we devolve back to the simplest metrics - test scores. This is defined as the "outcome" that we desire. But this is only one of a host of outcomes that we actually want for our students.

Nothing makes this clearer than the personal decisions made by people with the MOST control over their own children's education. The schools attended by the very wealthy are not chosen for their test scores - in fact many of them do not give standardized tests at all. Neither do they use student test scores to evaluate their teachers.

While Bill Gates undoubtedly used test score data as the basis for his assertion that class size does not matter much, and should be allowed to rise, it is fair to assume that the small class sizes at the private school attended by his children offer outcomes other than test scores.

What are the outcomes these schools offer?

The Sidwell Friends school, attended by Sasha and Malia Obama, says this:

We cultivate in all members of our community high personal expectations and integrity, respect for consensus, and an understanding of how diversity enriches us, why stewardship of the natural world matters and why service to others enhances life. Above all, we seek to be a school that nurtures a genuine love of learning and teaches students "to let their lives speak."

The Lakeside School, attended by Bill Gates himself several decades ago, and now by his children, says this:

Lakeside's 5th- to 12th-grade student-centered academic program focuses on the relationships between talented students and capable and caring teachers. We develop and nurture students' passions and abilities and ensure every student feels known.
Each student's curiosities and capabilities lead them to unique academic challenges that are sustained through a culture of support and encouragement. All students will find opportunities to discover and develop a passion; to hone the skills of writing, thinking, and speaking; and to interact with the world both on and off campus. Lakeside trusts that each student has effective ideas about how to maximize his or her own education, and that they will positively contribute to our vibrant learning community.

The parents who send their children to these schools keep a sharp eye on the outcomes that really matter. They know that personal relationships are key, and that is something that cannot be measured on a test. It is something that is made possible by small class sizes and a warm environment that recognizes the uniqueness of every child.

This is the opposite of using standardized measurement tools to score and rank every learner, and every teacher.

Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote back in 1947:

The function of education, therefore, is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. But education which stops with efficiency may prove the greatest menace to society.

Measurement and standardization delivers efficiency without excellence. When this becomes the driving force in a marketized education system, it fosters conformity and channels innovation towards commercially viable solutions for those unable to purchase the sort of personalized education the wealthy choose for their own children. Measurement in education will not serve the poor. It will merely make the schools attended by the poor more efficient in preserving their poverty.

What do you think? Will more Gatesian measurements improve education for the poor?

Continue the dialogue with me on Twitter at @AnthonyCody

A question for Bill Gates

Here's the question Anthony Cody asked Bill Gates on Reddit.

Mr. Gates, I am a teacher recently retired after 24 years in the high poverty schools of Oakland, California.

Your foundation has decided that the variable that is the key to overcoming poverty in the US is the ability of our teachers to raise test scores. Differences between teachers account for less than 15% of the differences in student outcomes, research has shown.
You have stated that measuring things and setting goals has great power. Why not measure other factors that are known to contribute far more to student success? Things like rates of unplanned pregnancy, availability of preschool, equitable funding for schools, lead poisoning, access to libraries, poverty, nutrition, neighborhood violence?
Attention to any one of these things would yield better results than our obsession over test scores.

See here: http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2013/02/an_open_letter_to_bill_gates_w.html

An Open Letter to President Obama from Bill Ayers

This was written by Bill Ayers is an American elementary education theorist and a retired professor in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. This open letter first appeared here.

by Bill Ayers

Dear President Obama: Congratulations!

I’m sure this is a moment you want to savor, a time to take a deep breath, get some rest, hydrate, regain your balance, and take a long walk in the sunshine. It might be as well a good time to reflect, rethink, recharge, and perhaps reignite. I sincerely hope that it is, and I urge you to put education on your reflective agenda.

The landscape of “educational reform” is currently littered with rubble and ruin and wreckage on all sides. Sadly, your administration has contributed significantly to the mounting catastrophe. You’re not alone: The toxic materials have been assembled as a bipartisan endeavor over many years, and the efforts of the last several administrations are now organized into a coherent push mobilized and led by a merry band of billionaires including Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg, Sam Walton, and Eli Broad.

Whether inept or clueless or malevolent—who’s to say?—these titans have worked relentlessly to take up all the available space, preaching, persuading, promoting, and, when all else fails, spreading around massive amounts of cash to promote their particular brand of school change as common sense. You and Secretary Arne Duncan—endorsed in your efforts by Newt Gingrich, Paul Ryan, and a host of reactionary politicians and pundits—now bear a major responsibility for that agenda.

The three most trumpeted and simultaneously most destructive aspects of the united “school reform” agenda are these: turning over public assets and spaces to private management; dismantling and opposing any independent, collective voice of teachers; and reducing education to a single narrow metric that claims to recognize an educated person through a test score. While there’s absolutely no substantive proof that this approach improves schooling for children, it chugs along unfazed—fact-free, faith-based reform at its core, resting firmly on rank ideology rather than any evidence whatsoever.

The three pillars of this agenda are nested in a seductive but wholly inaccurate metaphor: Education is a commodity like any other—a car or a refrigerator, a box of bolts or a screwdriver—that is bought and sold in the marketplace. Within this controlling metaphor the schoolhouse is assumed to be a business run by a CEO, with teachers as workers and students as the raw material bumping along the assembly line while information is incrementally stuffed into their little up-turned heads.

It’s rather easy to begin to think that “downsizing” the least productive units, “outsourcing” and “privatizing” a space that was once public, is a natural event. Teaching toward a simple standardized measure and relentlessly applying state-administered (but privately developed and quite profitable) tests to determine the “outcomes” (winners and losers) becomes a rational proxy for learning; “zero tolerance” for student misbehavior turns out to be a stand-in for child development or justice; and a range of sanctions on students, teachers, and schools—but never on lawmakers, foundations, corporations, or high officials (they call it “accountability")—is logical and level-headed.

I urge you to resist these policies and reject the dominant metaphor as wrong in the sense of inaccurate as well as wrong in the sense of immoral.

Education is a fundamental human right, not a product. In a free society education is based on a common faith in the incalculable value of every human being; it’s constructed on the principle that the fullest development of all is the condition for the full development of each, and, conversely, that the fullest development of each is the condition for the full development of all. Further, while schooling in every totalitarian society on earth foregrounds obedience and conformity, education in a democracy emphasizes initiative, courage, imagination, and entrepreneurship in order to encourage students to develop minds of their own.

When the aim of education and the sole measure of success is competitive, learning becomes exclusively selfish, and there is no obvious social motive to pursue it. People are turned against one another as every difference becomes a potential deficit. Getting ahead is the primary goal in such places, and mutual assistance, which can be so natural in other human affairs, is severely restricted or banned. It’s no wonder that cheating scandals are rampant in our country and fraudulent claims are commonplace.

Race to the Top is but one example of incentivizing bad behavior and backward ideas about education as the Secretary of Education begins to look and act like a program officer for some charity rather than the leading educator for all children: It’s one state against another, this school against that one, and my second grade in fierce competition with the second grade across the hall.

You have opposed privatizing social security, pointing out the terrible risks the market would impose on seniors if the voucher plan were ever adopted. And yet you’ve supported—in effect—putting the most endangered young people at risk through a similar scheme. We need to expand, deepen, and fortify the public space, especially for the most vulnerable, not turn it over to private managers. The current gold rush of for-profit colleges gobbling up student loans is but one cautionary tale.

You’ve said that you defend working people and their right to organize and yet you have publicly and noisily maligned teachers and their unions on several occasions. You need to consider that good working conditions are good teaching conditions, and that good teaching conditions are good learning conditions. We can’t have the best learning conditions if teachers are forced away from the table, or if the teaching corps is reduced to a team of short-termers and school tourists.

You have declared your support for a deep and rich curriculum for all students regardless of circumstance or background, and yet your policies rely on a relentless regimen of standardized testing, and test scores as the sole measure of progress.

You should certainly pause and reconsider. What’s done is done, but you can demonstrate wisdom and true leadership if you pull back now and correct these dreadful mistakes.

In a vibrant democracy, whatever the most privileged parents want for their children must serve as a minimum standard for what we as a community want for all of our children. Arne Duncan attended the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools (as did our three sons); you sent your kids to Lab, and so did your friend Rahm Emanuel. There students found small classes, abundant resources, and opportunities to experiment and explore, ask questions and pursue answers to the far limits, and a minimum of time-out for standardized testing. They found, as well, a respected and unionized teacher corps, people who were committed to a life-long career in teaching and who were encouraged to work cooperatively for their mutual benefit (and who never would settle for being judged, assessed, rewarded, or punished based on student test scores).

Good enough for you, good enough for the privileged, then it must be good enough for the kids in public schools everywhere—a standard to be aspired to and worked toward. Any other ideal for our schools, in the words of John Dewey who founded the school you chose for your daughters, “is narrow and unlovely; acted upon it destroys our democracy.”

Sincerely,

William Ayers

Is your child's education for sale?

There is a movement afoot to privatize Public Education. It's important that we put names and faces to those who are perpetrating this plot.

You should know about how the American Legislative Economic Council, Bill Gates, Arne Duncan, David Colman, Jeb Bush,  Rupert Murdoch, Michelle Rhee, Joel Klein and others are selling schools out.

If Rupert Murdoch wants to give students tablets, the proper response is not "thank you!" -- it's "why?".

It's important to understand the role personalization and technology, choice and vouchers can play in the assault on Public Education.

Not only does The United States *not* have public health care, but if they keep this up, they won't have public education either.

As for other countries, like Canada, who are looking to improve their Public Education systems, they should only look to the United States for what not to do.

Two tales of personalization and technology

Personalization and technology can be read as a dream or a nightmare -- it all depends on who is telling the story.

If Bill Gates, Rupert Murdoch, Arne Duncan or Michelle Rhee are perpetrating the plot then personalization is about using technology for union busting, test score analytics and the marketization of our children's minds. In this story, the poor get a computer, while the rich get a computer and a teacher. Technology is a trojan horse that carries an army of economists and shadow industries who have been stalking public education for a very long time. In this story, technology and personalization isn't about learning -- it's about money.

If Sir Ken Robinson, Alfie Kohn, Yong Zhao, Linda Darling-Hammond or Diane Ravitch are the narrators, then personalization is about student excitement, creativity, intrinsic motivation, curiosity and citizenship. In this story, even when supplying children with their own computer becomes cheaper than providing them with a teacher, we have the courage to give all kids both. Ultimately, personalization isn't about technology -- it's about learning.

Personalization and technology can be about collaborating to discover our passions but it can also be about competing over profits. Some versions of (hyper) personalization can be about pilotless flying, surgeonless surgery and teacherless teaching -- this version of hyper-personalization is less about how a learner uses technology and more about how the technology uses the learner. Communications expert Marshall McLuhan told us this in 1964 when he said, "We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us."

Seymour Papert, an expert on children and computing, may have summarized the two stories of personalization via technology with this:

I am no Pollyanna about technology. The record of how society took up earlier technologies is frighteningly bad. We first made automobiles in the hundreds of millions and then worried about how to mend the damage done by deforming our cities, polluting our atmosphere and changing the lives of our teenage children. Why should we as a society do better this time? 

I don’t know whether digital technology can hurt the atmosphere. But I do know that it could make a dramatic difference for the better or for the worse in the lives of children, and that there is no guarantee that it will be for the good. Quite the contrary, if one goes by what one sees happening today, it is almost guaranteed that the technology will be used mindlessly or for the profit of corporations rather than for the benefit of children.

In which story of personalization and technology are you a character?

Raising class sizes, Ruining the schools

There are dangerous education deform templates in America that run the risk of establishing a horrific precedent for others all over the world.

The latest comes from Kansas City, Missouri's Public School District superintendent John Covington. The Parents Across America Blog explains:

Last week at a school board meeting, Kansas City, MO School District superintendent John Covington told the school board that there is no research that supports reduced class size linked to increased student achievement. During the meeting, Covington cited the views of Bill Gates, who has minimized the importance of class size and suggested that teachers be paid more for teaching larger classes.

Covington went on to say that his staff had identified the “best” teachers in the district and would be giving them additional students. This was less than a week before school was scheduled to begin. The day after this announcement, teachers in the early grades received their class lists. Some first grade teachers were assigned 37 students per class, and some kindergarten teachers had 25-30 – compared to other teachers in the same schools, who had twenty students per class. Interestingly, some of these larger classes were staffed with brand new Teach for America recruits.

Then on August 19, Covington hosted a breakfast for eight elementary classroom teachers from about six schools out of 23, in grades 3-5th, whom he identified as “the best in the district.” He did not explain how he determined that they were the best. He told them that if they were willing to take 6 to 8 additional students, he would give each of them them $10,000. This would mean they would have class sizes in the mid to upper thirties.

For the first year ever, principals were not allowed to assign teachers or kids to classes within their own buildings. Covington’s staff did all of that. They decided who would teach what grade level and which kids would be assigned to each teacher. Before, this has ALWAYS been handled by each principal for his/her school.

This is yet another example of how the suits have hijacked our education system to enact their own reforms that meet their needs. In this case the argument goes something like this:

• Explicitly talk about student achievement while meaning nothing more than high scores on standardized tests.
• Down play outside of the classroom factors (poverty and family) as mere excuses and over-emphasize the importance of inside of the classroom factors (teacher quality)
• Show the public that student achievement (test scores) does not rise with lower class sizes nor fall with high class sizes
• Define good teaching as producing high test scores.
• Bribe teachers with merit pay and bonuses to increase test scores and willingly take on more students.

The result is that opportunistic superintendents like John Covington can save money and garnish large financial bonuses while padding their resumes in an intensive campaign wrought with shameless self-promotion -- all on the backs of our children.

Rod Paige orchestrated the Texas Miracle which was later reported to be nothing more than a mirage, but not before George W. Bush named him Secretary of Education.

Arne Duncan's record in Chicago has also proven to be at best troublesome, but that didn't stop him from being awarded the opportunity to do what didn't work in Chicago to the entire nation.

Beverly Hall won national praise and lavish bonuses during her 11 year tenure as Atlanta's Public School superintendent only to resign in 2010 because of a city-wide cheating scandal.

If John Covington in Kansas City, MO plays his cards right, he can cram real children into less classrooms while fabricating progress in the name of furthering his career.

When we go to Wall Street economists for our educational advice, we get what we pay for. When we allow Bill Gates to influence experiments on our children, we allow our children to be subjected to misguided theories that have already been proven wrong. Be wary of anyone who professes that class size doesn't matter. The research is clear: as long as you define student achievement as more than just high test scores then class size matters.

Until teachers, parents and students refuse our cooperation with these test and punish, control from afar corporate deformers, our children's education will continue to service the best interests of others.

Is grading a 21st century teacher skill?

Here are 21 signs that you are a 21st Century Teacher as outlined by the Simple K-12.

There is a lot of cool technology on this list; much of it exemplifies how a "21st Century Teacher" broadens the definition of success and excellence. I can see a lot of differentiation through podcasting, Skyping, social networking, collaboration on a global scale, virtual field trips and hand held devices.

Countless classrooms have been liberated by these technological advances - and countless other classrooms have yet to be liberated, but may shortly be. Everyday, more and more teachers are discovering a whole new world based on these technologies.

For too long school has placed a premium on written essays and reports. Other forms of communication have always been there, but today's technology makes the creating, collaborating and sharing of video and audio projects even more of a possibility than ever.

This is all very cool.

This list could be seen as a radical shift... a technological revolution... the dawn of a new classroom age...

... yet... what if Alfie Kohn is right and some of this technology "amounts to a 21st-century veneer on old fashioned, teacher-centered instruction"?

Don't get me wrong, I love technology; I utilize it everyday with my students - but I fear that we are still driven to distraction by technology. I fear that we are having a technology debate masquerading as an education debate.

Noam Chomsky put it this way:

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate."

Technology is certainly providing a lively debate amongst policy makers, parents, students and teachers. It's a debate that people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are more than happy to facilitate.

Here's what I mean.

Have a look at number five from the 21 signs you are a 21st Century Teacher:

You ask your students to study and create reports on a controversial topic...and you grade their video submissions.

Can you see how the spectrum for debate is limited to the incidentals and implementation and not on whether we should be grading at all? The lively debate is over what we shall grade and how we shall do it, thus the presupposition that grading is something all teachers should and need to do, continues to live a long and healthy life.

I'm not saying we can't talk about technology.

That would be foolish.

But I am saying we need to talk about the pedagogy behind how children construct their own understanding at least as often as wikis, blogs and Twitter.

It`s a bird! It`s a plane! No, it`s a culture in crisis!

This was written by Dr. Phil McRae, an executive staff officer with the Alberta Teachers` Association.This post first appeared on the Alberta Teachers` Association website.


By Phil McRae
The documentary Waiting for Superman has ignited a debate about educational reform in American public schools. 

On one side (think right) of the debate, you’ll find so-called “New Progressives,” such as Bill Gates, Jeb Bush, Michael Bloomberg and Eli Broad. These wealthy men (educated in private schools and none of them teachers) are calling for increased standardization, narrow outcomes-based accountability and an increase in privately run, publicly funded charter schools, and they are throwing their power and money into achieving these things. In fact, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is donating US$2 billion in grants to redesign high schools and to evaluate teacher effectiveness to “help systematically uncover schools and teachers [that] are not performing” (Toronto Star, September 12, 2010). 

Waiting for Superman, directed by Davis Guggenheim (who also directedAn Inconvenient Truth, a 2006 documentary about former US Vice-President Al Gore’s campaign to educate people about global warming) is highly critical of some American teachers and their professional associations. The film emphasizes high school dropout rates and the failure of many children to get a good education, but it does not document the damage done by No Child Left Behind legislation, which has narrowed curriculum and increased standardized testing, nor does it show how competition between schools is really about a race to improve their test scores. Furthermore, to blame teachers for what are essentially political and societal problems is grossly unfair. Many politicians seeking to appeal to their electorate seek the easy solution and blame teachers for the problems facing today’s schools. This documentary and the firing of more than 70 classroom teachers at a so-called “low-performing” high school in Central Falls, Rhode Island, clearly show how educators can become scapegoats in times of economic insecurity.

Countering the movement to blame teachers are proponents of education—such people as Yong Zhao, Andy Hargreaves, Linda Darling-Hammond, Dennis Shirley and Dianne Ravitch—who are calling for less high-stakes testing and standardization and more fostering of creativity in schools, nurturing of diversity and talent, and development of global and digital competencies within school communities.

The US is reeling from economic decline, ever widening income disparity and a shrinking middle class. It’s a nation polarized on educational policy and principle and  is struggling to prosper in an age of globalization. Many of the reforms advocated in the documentary are fuelled by politicians’ and business elites’ fear of emerging economic powers, such as China and India. 

Lesley Chilcott, the producer of Waiting for Superman, stated at the Toronto International Film Festival in September: “Use us as a warning sign here in Canada … my understanding is things are starting to slip here.” Though one does well to be vigilant, at present, Alberta is working to better the education system in positive and progressive ways. Alberta’s path to educating confident and capable people should be characterized by cultivating creativity, cherishing individual talents, focusing on diversity, fostering global competencies and de-emphasizing test-based accountability regimes. Such a path is diametrically opposed to the trajectory of educational reform efforts in the US. At least in Alberta, we have a different conversation (at present) about public education and teachers. Education Minister David Hancock, in his letter to Albertans on October 5, 2010, stated: “The teaching profession should be valued above all by our society and community.”

The New Progressives may well destroy the US public education system (and many good teachers with it). If the US continues its relentless privatization of education, it will be left behind as a deeply divided and uneducated nation. The US is experiencing a cultural crisis and is looking for direction—let’s hope it looks beyond the naïveté of Guggenheim’s documentary.