Virtual School Meanderings

March 7, 2016

Guest Blogger: School of Tommorow

This is a guest post by Pastor David Wilson of the Grant Avenue Baptist Church in Redondo Beach, CA. He contacted me with these thoughts after reading either Questions About The School Of Tomorrow and/or Guest Blogger: Examining Accelerated Christian Education. I want to thank Paster Wilson for allowing me to post these comments, as the use of distance education and online learning materials in Christian schooling is a story that isn’t told as often in the field.

Dear Mr. Barbour,

I worked with the A.C.E. (now School of Tomorrow) curriculum for many years.  During this period, I ran into several conflicts with some of the materials and I wanted to share with you how some change
was effected in them.

We had a very intelligent young man (now a doctor) who was the first graduate who attended from preschool through High School and graduated with honors.  He also was African-American, and much more sensitive to issues which related to African Americans as depicted in the material.

He had some good questions.

First, he pointed out that the character “cartoons” in the material in the younger grades were all white.  Second, when African American characters were added they were always presented separately, as if they all had their own churches and fellowships.  I don’t recall a single occurrence of such a teaching strip presenting mixed fellowships.  To the people at School of Tomorrow all such relationships were separate as presented in the teaching strips.

Later, in High School material, an English Pace used an old poem about “Tracks.”  The reference was to gospel tracts, but the dialogue used was old Southern ignorant Black speech and dialect, even using the word “Massa” (as I recall, but that’s been a lot of years)… I personally wrote a letter to A.C.E. and received no answer.  Later, I spoke on the phone to Mrs. Howard’s assistant.  (the story then was that the founder, Dr. Donald Howard, was overworked and gravely ill and others were taking leadership responsibilities, including his son. I was assured that Mrs. Howard has seen the material and decided that indeed it was inappropriate.

In your blog, you quoted a section from High School Social Studies, American History, that spoke derogatorily of South African Blacks. The discussion was used as an example to illustrate a point I have forgotten, but had no place in a history of the United States and its founding.  Once again, I wrote a letter.  The pastor of the church wrote a letter as well.  The student wrote a letter as well.  I received a phone call from the author of the material, who defended it.  I continued putting the pressure on until I reached Donald Howard, Jr. (I think that was his name, but he was the son of the founder– the founder being ousted after allegations of sinful conduct came to light that created a breach in his family and the organization).. The young man was at the time taking the lead for the publication and had actually spent two years in South Africa and completely disagreed with the statement.  In fact, the statement was alluded to in later materials relating to World History, as I recall. He refused to RECALL and REPRINT the materials, but did tell me that the next printing would remove that statement because of my strong opposition.  He was very gracious and kind and when the next printing of those materials came out, that section had been edited out.  I was informed that the author of the material, who taught at their Institute (i.e. college) was retiring and would have no further input. He also advised me that the old school founders who had some “Southern ideas” were all being phased out, making room for younger people with a better understanding of such issues.

As a school administrator, I worked diligently to see a number of edits and changes made to the material, as our school was a mixture of all races.

ACE material had some weak areas.  I quickly learned that almost every student coming into our school would have to do a number of low level Packets explaining some simple English concepts  (adjectives and adverbs)… I took the material and established a remedial English class for those who had that failing, that met two times… Whereupon, students were able to retake the diagnostic test and understanding those simple concepts grow.

The major lack with School of Tomorrow was their challenge for our students to excel, while their people were allowed to continue with major fails in writing materials and distributing the materials. Materials were constantly on back order, or left out of a shipment, or the wrong materials shipped.  Their consultants would come and “inspect” our school, and insist on excellence, but they themselves did not hold those same standards.

When the ACE system was taken seriously by staff and students, students excelled.  We had many students who came to us who had missed very important concepts in public school experiences.  When the system was applied, suddenly the tools to learn were put in their hands.  The system broke down when students and staff sought shortcuts.  There were several math packets that were so poorly written that every student who completed the packet would have to repeat it, sometimes more than once.  Special tutoring sessions for those packets had to be created as the material was so poorly organized or explained that students could not grasp the material.  As I recall, Math PACE # 71 was a critical failure that 99% of students failed the test.  There were several others like that.

Other problems with the material (which gradually were corrected, thanks to input from our school and others) was that multiple choice questions were asked and of the three potential answers two of them made no sense.  A section of reading was immediately followed by a page of questions that were presented in the same order as they appeared in the material.  Students quickly learned that they didn’t need to read all the material, but simply go to the questions and scan the reading for answers.  To my knowledge, this was never changed,.

In comparison, when the church I pastored started a school, we mixed Alpha-Omega material for some classes, and the students and staff both found it to be well-written, but found that answering questions was much more difficult though I felt much more preparatory for college level work, as the questions were not presented in order from the reading material, were more in-depth questions, and required more critical thinking and response.  However, since students scored their own work, it was difficult for them to ascertain that they had articulated a correct or wrong answer since their wording was always
different.

Every breakdown in learning stemmed from students cheating, poor supervision to prevent cheating, or staff members failing to see a student struggling with an area and failing to provide assistance.

Finally, the problem we had in running Christian Schools (our church disbanded theirs about six years ago) was that the students who came to us claimed to come from Christian homes that were committed to Christ, but the students turned out to be refugees from public school. Either they had been in trouble or were avoiding trouble.  Therefore, it was difficult to prevent our Christian Schools from becoming REFORM schools with a Christian theme.  Sometimes, it worked.  Sometimes, it didn’t.  Our church established a rule that no student who had been suspended or expelled from another school could be received, unless a reasonable doubt of the fairness of that action was provided.  For example, the school I worked in for nineteen years had several incidents of temperamental staff expelling students without  just cause.  One administrator actually challenged a student to a fight over a comment made towards the administrator’s step-daughter and the student was the one expelled.  Another time, a student was told he could not do something (I forget the detail) and when he asked “Why?” the administrator threw a full soda into a trash can and told him he was expelled for challenging authority.  Since I knew the student, he attended and graduated in our church’s new school.

My problem was struggling too long with students who were not acting appropriately.  When they did not respond to discipline, I had no choice but to dismiss them.  Often, in efforts to love and reach them, I waited too long to do so.  In one case, because the students came from the church of a fellow pastor, I kept two brothers in our school for far too long, not wanting to offend the other pastor.  When their actions became so grievous that I had no choice, I dismissed them. Later, he thanked me for ministering to them, but advised me that they both were in serious trouble with the law.

There is also the problem of the Pastor’s oversight of the school distracting him from other work within the church.

Well, I’ve gone on and on, and your post was written six years ago… I just wanted you to know some of my experiences, and also, how some of that offensive material got changed.

God’s blessings upon you,

Pastor David Wilson
Grant Avenue Baptist Church
Redondo Beach, CA

This is a guest post by Pastor David Wilson of the Grant Avenue Baptist Church in Redondo Beach, CA. I want to thank Pastor Wilson for his unsolicited comments.  As is the practice here at Virtual School Meanderings, this guest post will be the only blog entry posted today.

August 27, 2014

Cyber Schooling And Homeschooling

I’ve often said that full-time K-12 online learning that has no residential component is kind of like glorified homeschooling.  Last week, this came across my electronic desk

High-Tech Schools With Low-Tech Problems

When artists of the 1960s imagined the future of education, they pictured it sleek, efficient, and technologically advanced. The futuristic world of strangely elliptical buildings and incongruously boxy robots included idealized classrooms where children sat at screens and interacted with responsive, albeit automated, educators. Technology today may be more sophisticated, but most classrooms still do not gleam with chrome, nor do students spend their day wondering if their robotic teacher will blow a fuse. The closest any school comes to the screen-lit, button-controlled, automated classroom of old cartoons is the online charter school, a form of public education that has become a sticky problem in some states.

Cyber charter schools usually make the news because of money: alleged fraud, concern that companies and individuals profit from public money, bills outlining funding reform, and even calls for states to eliminate support for cyber charter schools altogether. People are understandably concerned about how taxes are used. More importantly, though, people are beginning to express concern that cyber charter schools across the country do not provide quality, or even adequate, education. The results so far fail to impress. According to a Stanford University study, all Pennsylvania cyber charter schools underperform, and those in others states fare just as poorly in math and reading achievement.

To continue reading…

One of the lines that caught my attention read:

Ahn mentions the problematic fact that most students enrolled in online schools need guidance, organization, and encouragement to address social and academic needs, but are being placed in a less-structured setting. If a student’s problems in formal classrooms stemmed from the lack of effort, poor self-control, social disorders or family dysfunction, then online education, where success depends upon personal initiative and strong parental oversight, may be less than idea for that child. In such cases, it would be no wonder that student achievement lags behind students in other public schools.

Unfortunately, many parents are unprepared for the limitations of online education and are shocked to discover that the education of their children in such a school falls heavily into their own hands. After two years of working with online charter schooling, I concluded that this form of education, particularly for elementary students, only works if the families view it as supported homeschooling. The parents teach their children and oversee the daily work, which demonstrates a significant shift in the teacher-student-parent relationship….

In parent discussion forums, many working parents of elementary school students complain that they had been sold a bill of goods, that online schools had emphasized how each student would have an online teacher that would do the teaching. Instead, these parents found themselves in the unenviable position of working full-time and trying to educate their young children. Parents usually hold the title “learning coach,” even though oversee lessons, arrange and manage the classroom, and explain concepts. Essentially, I taught my daughter under the title “coach” and the teacher coached us from afar under the label “teacher.”

If it looks like a duck…  ;)

For more on this topic, this news item came across my electronic desk about a month ago:

Online School: Is It Homeschooling?

Homeschooling has been around for centuries, but online school is a comparatively recent innovation. In the last decade, all kinds of online education options have popped up, providing homeschooling parents with more options than there are curriculum stands at a homeschool convention.

From Christian online academies to state online schools to post-secondary classes, the avenues for homeschooling seem infinite. The new question is: Do online classes “count” as homeschooling? Some parents whose kids take online classes consider themselves homeschoolers, but others do not.

To continue reading…

If it quacks like a duck… ;)

May 29, 2012

Guest Blogger: Examining Accelerated Christian Education

Jonny Scaramanga was educated in England with Accelerated Christian Education from ages 11-14. He now teaches music at the undergraduate level. He is researching Accelerated Christian Education and writing about fundamentalism in Britain at his blog, Leaving Fundamentalism. As is the tradition at Virtual School Meandering, this will be the only entry today.

This blog recently asked what Accelerated Christian Education is, and what evidence there is of student achievement (see Questions About The School Of Tomorrow). Accelerated Christian Education is a pre-packaged programmed learning curriculum, which teaches fundamentalist Christianity. It has attracted controversy from Christian and secular academics alike. Criticisms centre on the teaching of Creationism, political propaganda, and an emphasis on rote recall at the expense of higher-order thinking skills.

Learning and assessment methodologies

There are several factors that cause students to take a surface learning approach.1 From teachers, these include testing for independent facts (inevitably the case when using short answer and multiple-choice tests), and the use of extrinsic motivation. From students, factors include a cynical view of education, and thinking that factual recall is adequate. All of these are found extensively within Accelerated Christian Education.

ACE tests almost exclusively consist of multiple choice, matching, or fill-in-the-blank questions. These means only test factual recall, not understanding. Even if the students are trying to take a deep learning approach, they are not given the opportunity. A surface approach is even more likely when students are tested exessively; ACE students are expected to engage in two summative tests per week.2

At the end of each PACE section, students mark their own work. They obtain permission to leave their seats before going to a score station, where they check their answers against provided answer keys.3 It is difficult to envision a system which rewards cheating, or encourages cynicism, more effectively.

ACE prescribes a system of rewards and punishments for students.4 Those who achieve academic and behavioural goals are awarded privileges such as extended break times and the freedom to move without permission. All the rewards offered are forms of extrinsic motivation, emphasising that learning itself is not the thing of value.

ACE assessments do not provide evidence that deep learning has taken place. Options on the multiple choice tests are frequently meaningless, such as “Jesus died on the (cross, toss, chrome)”.5

ACE vice president Ronald Johnson writes,6

“Our material is not written with conventional viewpoints in mind. We do not believe that education should be non-directive or speculative, or that the final interpretation of facts and events should be left up to immature, inexperienced minds, as minline secular curricula do.”

ACE rejects virtually all modern educational theory.7 It is not aiming to teach children how to think, but rather, how to see life from God’s point of view.8 Asking questions is seen as a rejection of the divine authority invested in the school’s supervisors. As a result, the curriculum is systematically purged of methods of inquiry. Inevitably, higher order thinking skills are neglected; this is intentional.9

Science

The ACE curriculum includes no practical science and accordingly no investigation. This would be troublesome for any ACE student embarking on a science higher education course.

“The PACEs are based on the reading comprehension mode of learning… There is no room within this method of learning for the negotiation of topics, for whole class problem solving, for the generation of ideas, for the formulating and testing of hypotheses, discussion of results and social application.”10

ACE science teaches Creationism. Leaving aside whether Creationism is true, ACE’s approach is unscientific. Rather than weighing evidence objectively, the ACE system rejects any science that contradicts the Bible, stating:

“True science will never contradict the Bible because God created both the universe and Scripture…If a scientific theory contradicts the Bible, then the theory is wrong and must be discarded.”11

The system also takes an intellectually dishonest approach to discrediting evolution. ACE claims12 evolutionists use the “hopeful monster” theory to save the “sinking ship” of evolution. In fact, this theory was put forward by one scientist, Richard Goldschmidt, whose ideas were dismissed by his colleagues. Another PACE claims that the Loch Ness Monster exists and is evidence for a young earth.13

Elsewhere, PACEs ridicule the theory of evolution:

“No branch of true science would make these kind of impossible claims without proof. Because evolutionists do not want to believe the only alternative – that the universe was created by God – they declare evolution is a fact and believe its impossible claims without any scientific proof!”14

They also claim that Young-Earth Creationism has “unquestionable proofs” and “unarguable evidences,”15 both deeply unscientific claims. The result is not just that ACE students learn incorrect facts, but that they are taught incorrect methods of reasoning, and gain a distorted view of the scientific method.

Racial insensitivity

The ACE curriculum shows insensitivity towards blacks, Jews, and natives.16 Cartoon strips used for the teaching of “Godly character” in the PACEs depict students attending racially segregated schools.17 ACE materials about Aborigines are unacceptable to the Aboriginal people.18 ACE’s stance on apartheid is also of concern. During apartheid, ACE claimed that if blacks were given the vote, it would destroy the South African economy.19 Subsequently, they have written about apartheid in terms that are equivocal at best:

“For many years, the four racial groups were separated politically and socially by law. This policy of racial separation is called ‘apartheid’. South Africa’s apartheid policy encouraged whites, Blacks, Coloureds, and Asians to develop their own independent ways of life. Separate living area and schools made it possible for each group to maintain and pass on their culture and heritage to their children.

“For many years, Blacks were not allowed to vote in national elections and had no voice in the national government. Reporters and broadcasters from all parts of the world stirred up feelings against the white South African government. These factors contributed to unrest within South Africa. In addition, there are at least ten separate, distinct tribal groups in the nation. Because these tribes are not a cohesive group but are often in conflict with each other, much of the violence in South Africa has been between different groups of Blacks. In spite of apartheid and the unrest in recent years, South Africa is the most developed country in Africa, and Blacks in South Africa earn more money and have higher standards of living than Blacks in other African countries.”20

Political Bias

ACE materials do not allow the consideration of any opposing point of view. This fails to develop skills required for degree-level study such as forming an argument, considering different opinions, and analysing the validity of claims. Rather than engaging with differing points of view, ACE derides them.21 ACE’s approach to politics borders on propaganda, with opinions presented as fact.22 An ACE Wisdom supplement (1987) claims that God’s values are those of right-wing politics. The further left a person moves on the political spectrum, the further they move from God’s absolutes: “Men on the left cannot walk in wisdom.”

ACE promotes coverage over depth, virtually ruling out deep engagement with the subject.23 World History, from Creation to the present, is covered in a series of 12 PACEs, each of about 40 pages. Because all the answers are contained within the PACE, the student will not learn how to conduct research or evaluate sources.

Evidence for Success

There is little research into the performance of ACE graduates in higher education, but the data available is negative. ACE used to claim that standardised test results showed their students performing up to 1.7 years above their expected grade level, but this was misleading. Speck & Prideaux explain:24

“What is less well known is the testing procedure ACE uses to arrive at these results. ACE developers use the 1957 California Achievement Test (CAT) with 1963 North American norms (Hunter, 1984, p. 59). The tests do not rely on problem-solving approaches to learning which are now current in most curricula are not useful in making reliable comparisons between ACE and other students.”

There have been just three studies comparing the performance of ACE graduates with either nearby public schools, or national averages, on standardised tests, from 1985,25 2005, and 2007. In all three cases, ACE students performed below average. This data is highly limited, but it’s all that’s available.

The only positive academic literature on ACE is from Jacqui Baumgardt, an ACE employee in South Africa. Her qualitative data (a self-selecting sample of 77 – 9% of ACE’s South African graduates in that period) indicated that South African ACE graduates in higher education were generally satisfied with their own performance. Even this, however, was not without criticism for ACE. It indicated that many ACE students struggled to get their qualifications recognised by universities, and some were refused entry entirely. One parent was told by a university, “We’re not taking any more ACE students because their performance has been unacceptable.” Baumgardt dismisses the suggestion that this is due to any weakness with ACE, arguing that it is down to a lack of awareness of the system on the part of the admissions officers.

Conclusion

The most telling aspect about ACE is that criticism comes from both Christian and secular educators, but support for it comes only from fellow fundamentalists. Even if the biased nature of its history, politics, and science education is ignored, the system can be dismissed on academic grounds. Fundamentalists are unlikely to see this, because the primary goal of Accelerated Christian Education is not education – it is religious conversion.

[1] Biggs & Tang 2007: 23, 35

[2] ACE 2010: 84

[3] ACE 2010: 111

[4] ACE 2010: 119

[5] Speck and Prideaux 1993: 286

[6] Johnson 1987: 520

[7] Berliner 1997

[8] ACE 1999: back cover

[9] Fleming and Hunt 1987: 523; Speck and Prideaux 1993: 283; Alberta 1985: 18

[10] Speck & Prideaux 1993: 290

[11] ACE 1996a: 9

[12] ACE 1996b: 24

[13] ACE 1995: 30

[14] ACE 1996b: 24

[15] ACE 1996a: 31

[16] Alberta 1985: 25

[17] ACE 2010: 20-23

[18] Speck and Prideaux 1993: 285

[19] Dent 1993; ACE 1990: 29

[20] ACE 1996c: 27

[21] Alberta 1985: 24

[22] Paterson 2003: 14; Speck & Prideaux 1993: 283

[23] Biggs & Tang 2007: 40

[24] Speck & Prideaux 1993: 283

[25] Cited in Gehrman 1989: 89

References

Accelerated Christian Education (1990) Social Studies 1086. Lewisville: Author.

Accelerated Christian Education (1995) Science 1099. Lewisville, TX: Author.

Accelerated Christian Education (1996a) Science 1096. Lewisville, TX: Author.

Accelerated Christian Education (1996b) Science 1107. Lewisville, TX: Author.

Accelerated Christian Education (1996c) Social Studies 1099. Lewisville: Author.

Accelerated Christian Education (1999) The Great Commandment and the Great Commission: God’s Mandate for Christian Education. Nashville: Author. Available online from http://aceministries.com/aboutus/pdf/Great_Commandment_Commission.pdf. Accessed 25/5/12

Accelerated Christian Education (2010) Procedures Manual I: Learning Center Essentials. Unknown: Author.

Accelerated Christian Education (2012) ‘A.C.E. Curriculum’ [Online]. Available from http://www.aceministries.com/curriculum/?content=fourthEd. Accessed 14/5/12.

Alberta Dept. of Education, Edmonton (1985) An Audit of Selected Private School Programs: Accelerated Christian Education, Alpha Omega, Mennonite Schools, Seventh-Day Adventist Schools, and A BEKA Instructional Resources. Edmonton: Author. ED 256 022

Berliner, D. (1997) ‘Educational Pyschology Meets the Christian Right: Differing Views of Children, Schooling, Teaching, and Learning’. Teachers College Record, 98 (3), pp. 381-416.

Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (2007) Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Third Edition. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Dent, D. J. (1993) ‘A Mixed Message in Blacks Schools’. New York Times, 4/4/93, Education Supplement p. 28.

Fleming, D.B. and Hunt, T.C. (1987) ‘The World as Seen by Students in Accelerated Christian Education Schools.’ Phi Delta Kappan, 68 (7), pp. 518-523.

Gehrman, M.B. (1989) ‘Reading, Writing, and Religion’. In: Basil, R., Gehrman, M.B., and Madigan, T. eds. On the Barricades: Religion and Free Inquiry in Conflict. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, pp. 81-90.

Johnson, R.E. (1987) ‘Ace Responds’. Phi Delta Kappan, 68 (7), pp. 520-521.

Kelley, L.J.L. (2005) An Analysis of Accelerated Christian Education and College Preparedness Based on ACT Scores. Ed.S. Thesis. Huntington, WV: Marshall University.

Laats, A. (2010) ‘Forging a Fundamentalist “One Best System”: Struggles Over Curriculum and Educational Philosophy for Christian Day Schools, 1970-1989’. History of Education Quarterly, 49 (1), pp. 55-83.

Paterson, F.R.A. (2003) Democracy and Intolerance: Christian School Curriciula, School Choice, and Public Policy. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation

Speck, C. and Prideaux, D. (1993) ‘Fundamentalist Education and Creation Science’. Australian Journal of Education, 37 (3), pp. 279-295.

UK Naric (2012). ‘Benchmarking ICCE Qualifications’ [Online] ECCTIS. Available from: http://naric.org.uk/article.asp?article=106. Retrieved 14/5/12.

Jonny Scaramanga was educated in England with Accelerated Christian Education from ages 11-14. He now teaches music at the undergraduate level. He is researching Accelerated Christian Education and writing about fundamentalism in Britain at his blog, Leaving Fundamentalism.

October 4, 2011

News: How Will State Pay For Home Schooling?

A colleague out west sent this to me.  I’ve always struggled with this issue personally, as I believe the state (and in this case I mean entity, not a US state) has the responsibility to fund the education of its citizens.  However, at the same time those who choose homeschooling have indicated that they do not wish to be a part of that state run system for one reason or another – so why should the state have responsibility to pay for their education when they don’t want to be a part of the state’s system?  And if these home schooling parents wish to be a part of a state sponsored system, which allows them to continue to do their child’s education at home, is that still really home schooling? I haven’t resolved this in my own mind yet, but continue to think about the issue.

Anyway…


How will state pay for home schooling?
It’s not home schooling, but it’s not traditional school either: There is a range of arrangements parents can make to enroll kids in public schools while keeping them at home.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/04/27/1641623/how-will-state-pay-for-home-schooling.html?story_link=email_msg


A service of TheNewsTribune.com.

If you have some thoughts, please let me know…

July 21, 2010

Another New Online Program In Michigan

One of the items that came via my Yahoo! news alert for virtual school today read:

Firm helping D7 create virtual school
Dearborn Press & Guide Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:25 PM PDT
DEARBORN HEIGHTS — Dearborn Heights District 7 is hoping to lure home-schoolers and others to a new online academy it will start this fall.

The article (which is available at http://pressandguide.com/articles/2010/07/20//news/doc4c45c2b9193fa124159952.txt) describes how Dearborn Heights District 7 have entered into an agreement with Job Skill Technology, Inc. (JST) – although neither group has anything about it on their website yet (at least that I can find).

Based on the news article, it appears that Dearborn Heights District 7 wish to use this partnership to create this new school to primarily target students who are currently being homeschooled throughout Wayne County.  Interestingly, the articles does mention some figures:

$7,100/pupil – amount District 7 will receive from the state

$4,800/pupil – amount District 7 will pay JST
$200/pupil – amount District 7 will spent on a teacher mentor
$300-800/pupil – amount District 7 “might have to pay… to provide a laptop” (described as a “few hundred” in the article
Total cost per pupil (based on the article) – $5300/$5800

Interesting numbers indeed.  I say interesting because lately I have been looking at funding amounts a little more – since I started discussing it more on this blog.  If the total expense is indeed between $5300 and $5800 (and it seems to be, as later in the article the Superintendent is quoted as saying “Every kid we get we keep about $1,500”), that would be 74.6% and 81.7% of the amount being allocated by the state.  That seems about right.  In documents released recently related to the funding of cyber charter schools in Georgia, as best I can tell the costs were about 84% of the funding.  According to the 2009–10 Amended Budget for the St. Clair County RESA’s Virtual Learning Academy (VLA), they spend about 84% of the student allocation on running the VLA.

Beyond the economics of the situation, in looking at the JST website I see that the curriculum that will be used is likely to be from Plato Learning, Inc..  I like the fact that one of the people quoted in the news article is an alum of the IT program at Wayne State, which hopefully means that establishing contact and gaining access to do some research on this new program may be easier than other Michigan-based programs.

Next Page »

The Rubric Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,664 other followers