This scrolled through my Facebook stream yesterday.
Click on the image or visit http://www.excelined.org/Pages/Programs/Excellence_In_Action/Digital_Learning_Now.aspx.
Having only skimmed the document, I have to agree with Baird that it does represent a specific political view (and also, as I have in the past, with Cathy that there aren’t any researchers involved in the initiative – and it shows in the skimming that I did).
Anyway, here is some response from around the blogospohere (or at least the corners I follow):
- Digital Learning Council Releases ‘Road Map’ to Ed. Overhaul from Digital Education
- OpEd: Digital Learning Now from edReformer
- DigitalEd: The Ten Elements of High-Quality Digital Learning from edReformer
- DigitalEd: Bush-Wise Statement on High Quality Digital Learning from edReformer
- CNN Interviews Bush and Wise on Digital Learning Now from edReformer
- Digital Learning Council Recommendations Missing Details on Quality from The Quick and the Ed
- Digital Learning Now from Derek’s Blog
More later I’m sure, once I have time to really dissect the report.
12 Unique Blogs Are Written By Professors
Virtual School Meanderings 
Good morning Dr. Barbour!
Thanks for listing this link.
Took a look.
Essentially, the 10 elements are policy goals for law makers. The front matter discusses the dismal status of education today. The authors see technology as a catalyst for change. The 10 elements are detailed for lawmakers / policymakers.
The report is a pdf which I can not attach here.
It will only be as useful as the degree to which it is put to use.
Regards.
Comment by Greg. Eckrich — December 2, 2010 @ 9:54 am |
Greg, I know what the document proposes to do. However, this is a political document – plain and simple. It is a document that supports a very specific politic agenda that is designed to undermine traditional public schooling and create a system of education that is focused on a business model.
If these 10 recommendations are implemented it would essentially create an education system that resembles the health care system in the United States (where those who have economic and social capital will do well and those who don’t will have second class service). That’s why the political right and the billionaire boys club support these measures – it is a win-win.
Comment by mkbnl — December 2, 2010 @ 11:27 am |
Dr. Barbour,
The attitudinal posture you present is considered representative of your profession: real quick to spend other people’s money; quicker yet to decry the individuals and institutions that made that money in the first place. In short, the less private property the better.
The economic regression this posture represents is on display right now, right here, in the good ol’ US of A not to mention Greece, Ireland, and soon the entire EU. An economic system which ‘grants’ private property and then controls it is called fascism (economic definition, not political). The one that does not grant private property is called communism. Both are forms of socialism. Dr. Frederick Hayek in his Road To Serfdom explains this very clearly.
The political requirements to enforce such an economic policy are also on display too. Funny thing, the American people as a whole spoke very clearly in the mind-term elections. “Not interested,” was what I took away.
It is NOT the business of government to make all outcomes the same. Never was. The only thing government is to guarantee is that we still have the opportunity to try. Asians in this country seem to do very well. Why not your ‘special’ groups; your under served groups (whatever they may be by the definition of whom?)?
In my not so humble opinion, the name Jeb Bush immediately biased you. So much for critical and data-based evaluation.
Carpe diem.
Regards.
Comment by Greg. Eckrich — December 2, 2010 @ 1:12 pm |
Greg, it had nothing to do with Jeb Bush. Look at the rest of the team. Almost all right of center folks and people with strong ties to for profit entities within the K-12 education sector.
No need for the skewed political science lesson, that was my major when I was an undergraduate student. The bottom line is certain things cost society money. You can spend it on a quality education system for all students at the beginning, or you can spend it on a largely uneducated, unskilled adult populace. The desire is your’s as a society. Unfortunately, the United States has often taken the individualistic approach – which works fine for those who have social and economic capital. The problem is there is a voiceless segment of society that generation after generation isn’t able to pull themselves up by their mythical bootstraps (as the American dream would have us believe). These systemically disadvantaged individuals aren’t helped by the bottom line thinking being introduced into the education system, in the same way that they have not been served in the health care system.
I also disagree with your assessment of the message sent during the mid-term elections. Those who hold a left of center view have no real alternative in the current US political landscape. While Obama presented true liberal views in education prior to the election (largely based on his chief education policy person Linda Darling-Hammond), since the election and with the appointment of Duncan as Education Secretary we have followed an education agenda that would make the Bush-Spelling team proud. This is likely why most who believe that business principles and bottomline thinking shouldn’t apply to education had no one to go to the polls to support.
Finally, since you mention it… let’s talk about data-based evaluation. Please point to one methodologically sound study for me that indicates that online or blended learning is as effective as face-to-face instruction. Please point to one methodologically sound study for me that shows charter schooling to be more effective than traditional public schools. I can guarantee that you’ll find neither, which is why these blanket calls for K-12 online learning, and even moreso cyber charter schooling, as the answer to the educational problems in the United States are nothing more than a political ploy – part of a larger deschooling agenda.
Comment by mkbnl — December 2, 2010 @ 6:02 pm |