Education Evolutions #124

So, this is a day late as I am still shaking off whatever bug took hold of me at the end of last week. It pretty well wrecked the weekend and slowed me down. Still, here are a handful of readings that are not quite as dark as recent issues have seemed. I do like to find a little balance if possible and given the breadth of topics I try to cover with this newsletter is not completely impossible.

Given that this a vacation week for me, there will not be an issue next week. That has been pretty standard practice since I started this little experiment. So, issue #125 will arrive in nary a couple of weeks. Every time I see a milestone number I am a little surprised still. I never thought it would last as long as it has but I still like doing it and I have gotten some very kind feedback of late too.

This week’s “If you read only one article…” is the last one, of course. Anyone that reads this newsletter and cares about data privacy will have encountered the new California law before now. However, this piece walks everyone through the way that you can take advantage of the new protections, in some cases, whether or not you reside in California. We have so much further to go but this provides a great place to get started and begin to really take stock of all the services you currently use. it is a good prompt for a digital spring cleaning.

Here are three curated articles about education, technology, and evolutions in teaching.

The Soft Bigotry of Hard Grading – Teacher in a Strange Land blog – Nancy Flanagan (7-minute read)

There are so many good thoughts in this post it is hard to highlight them all. The title alone drew me, then I read it and was hooked. Ironically, I saw the Fordham Great Expectations report prior to reading this, spent a few seconds and moved on. I have long passed the point of taking anything seriously that comes from that institution or its cadre. Yet, it is good to stay aware of those with other points of view are espousing, I suppose even if they are little more than a shill front for edreformy, anti-teacher, and high-stakes testing industry interests. That is part of what makes this takedown so good, as a matter of fact.

Pulling a line from the Bush-era that ushered in the madness of NCLB, giving a greater voice to the likes of Fordham charlatans, and using it to highlight the ridiculousness was a creative masterstroke. Flanagan takes that blame-the-victim frame job and turns it on its head. Even better, she cuts through a lot of mythic silliness associated with grades. Grades are a kind of fiction. They might be realistic, maybe even historical fiction but fiction nonetheless. They are crude approximations at best. Plus, Flanagan is dead right when she writes, “Bad grades don’t motivate kids to try harder.” This is one of the most pernicious myths many teachers learn the hard way if they learn it at all. Of course, there is always an example of a student that perpetuates this myth, but how often does every conversation with that student revolve around grades rather than learning or the course?

I am also fascinated by those who bang on about standards or any holding-the-line mentality gibberish and then make arguments about grading. In a true standards-based system there really is no need for grades, at least as we familiar. A student meets the standard or does not. Anything beyond that has the whiff of the kind of elitism that is only interested in ranking and sorting. Then again, that is pretty much the stock and trade of most material that comes from outfits like Fordham. I am glad someone took aim and helped clarify some of these points.

‘Schools are killing curiosity’: why we need to stop telling children to shut up and learn – The Guardian – Wendy Berliner (5-minute read)

While this article is mostly recycled from a book by the columnist, cultivating curiosity and crafting questions has been an area that has fascinated me for a number of years in my teaching career. Getting past the somewhat sensationalist headline, anyone that teaches at the secondary level knows that to some degree school can do a great job of teaching the curiosity right out of students. Of course, it never is really quite as simple as all that, however.

What is interesting is the longitudinal study used to suggest how critical curiosity might be in academic achievement. While there is a certain, “Obviously” quality to this finding, it is a healthy reminder of how compliance can be prized over curiosity, especially with large groups of students. Yet, the more school becomes a transaction game, the less room there is for things like curiosity. As the findings of Williams College professor Susan Engle suggest, “The questions they asked were aimed at improving their results, whereas the questions asked by more curious students were aimed at understanding a topic more deeply.” Again, teaching in a high school provides plenty of evidence this is a pretty accurate assessment.

There are not necessarily a lot of suggestions on how to combat the kind of curiosity killing that can occur in school. Perhaps those answers are left out to encourage buying the book. For a number of years now, I have tried to use student questions to drive most of our work in class. If they do not derive the kind of questions specifically suggested in any curricular planning, it is not too difficult to add some related questions into the mix. However, part of building a relationship with any student can involve encouraging questions and curiosity. It may only be a small step but it can set a tone and help cultivate a place where questions are encouraged and rewarded. Any teacher can find time for this if it is important to them.

Don’t sell my data! We finally have a law for that – The Washington Post – Geoffrey Fowler (9-minute read)

This is a kind of feel-good article. Now that the California Consumer Privacy Act has passed the ramifications are starting to ripple through the system. It is mildly encouraging that there are a number of companies that have opted to extend the rights to all Americans rather than simply Californians. For the largest companies that probably makes the most sense actually. Maybe if more states gathered together to adopt similar laws and possibly adopt the California standard, at least in the early going, it might force everyone’s hands.

Best of all Fowler has already started the process and provides a pretty interesting tale of his experience, highlighting the oddest or most dramatic requests from companies wanting confirmation. Reading some of them strike me as potentially even more invasive than what is being collected. Still, the other really excellent element in this article is the list of links provided at the end for readers to start the process for themselves.

I am not sure that the California Consumer Privacy Act goes far enough, to be honest, but agree with Fowler that it is an important first step. I also tend to be pretty dubious about any next legislative steps at the minute, especially since political campaigns specifically are benefitting from some of these kinds of data collection and sales practices. However, I also wonder how many companies will actually become worse everywhere they can outside of the Golden State, as a result of the new law. I have not seen anything to suggest that is happening but I would not be surprised at all if it did. Anyway, this is a good start if nothing else.

Education Evolutions #123

Close up of smartphone in hand flickr photo by shared under
a Creative Commons (BY-SA) license

As usual, I read no shortage of fascinating articles and selecting the handful to share proved challenging. It did seem to me that the topics and items were connected by some deeper harder to perceive thread, which might be summed up by the persistent challenge of choosing the kind of world in which we wan to live. That may read as grand or even hyperbole but I think it connects these three selections, shedding some light on a few different perspectives of the same perpetual challenge.

How do we educate young people in a deep, meaningful way? How do we support those more vulnerable, stand together, and protect individual privacy for everyone? How do we find and remain informed with honest and reliable information without becoming victims of deliberate deceptions? They are all big questions that present an array of far from binary choices but they do challenge everyone to be reflective, considerate, and empathetic.

This week’s “If you read only one article…” is the last one. It is a longer read than most but it is an excellent introduction to the new ways old ideas are being used to divide and conquer through deliberate obfuscation and worse. It raises a whole lot of questions without many answers but remaining ignorant of what that article addresses might be the worst possible outcome. It is also a pretty impressively written feature.

Here are three+ curated articles about education, technology, and evolutions in teaching.

Common Core Is Dead. Long Live Common Core – Forbes – Peter Greene (6-minute read)

Retired teacher turned regular contributor to Forbes, Peter Greene has the potential to reach a much wider, mainstream audience than his blog gives him. More than anything he is an absolute advocate for public education and especially teachers. In this piece, he explains for a mainstream audience how the Common Core lives on and why despite any claims to the contrary. It is an excellent window into some of the nuances about how any education policy continues zombie-like until they are replaced completely by the next big policy charge.

Recently I attended a presentation with a Washington DC advocate for public libraries who explained that it generally takes an average of 10 years for any public policy to develop and be implemented. As I have watched things unfold, that comment seems to pass the eye. I was reminded of that comment as I read Greene here and it made me wonder just how long a failed policy lingers after its time has passed.

As suggested here, the Common Core’s long-term impact is complicated by an education marketplace lobbying for their own interests, district administration’s interest in implementation, and classroom teacher’s interest in the practicalities of what works in the moment with the students in front of them, among other factors. Common Core will remain as a dormant virus as long as we retain a system that privileges high-stakes testing, at least until it is overtaken by the next shiny new button.

Stop Making the ‘I Have Nothing to Hide’ Online Privacy Argument – OneZero on Medium – Andy Pavey (6-minute read)

While this piece takes some time to work round to the promise of its title, occasionally doing so in a strident manner, it captures a few remarkable points we must remind ourselves about with some regularity. I often hear a common mantra of “I have nothing to hide,” which makes me bristle. Even if that is true for many of us, to think that that the large volumes of data being collected by commercial enterprises, let alone arms of any state cannot be used for purposes other than intended is beyond naive. What’s more, as Pavey explains it is not about the individual, it is about solidarity and all of us collectively.

We have so many examples of the chilling and corrosive effect constant surveillance has on humans. The lengthy, opening details about the surveillance on Martin Luther King Jr. serve as a cautionary tale but it is by far not the only one. Taken to an extreme degree, it is not just a limitation on free speech, while important for a host of reasons, it is a pre-emptive effort to limit any form of resistance, opposition, or disagreement. In a historical moment of profound polarization that has some equally profound implications.

Beyond all of that, I have no doubt that there are plenty of people that sincerely feel like they have nothing to hide. Yet, privacy is not about hiding, it is about being free from unwanted public attention, judgment, or intrusion. Humans are social creatures, but I cannot think of anyone that does not want that from time to time, no matter how open or public they might be in their daily lives. Ultimately, what resonated most with me was Pavey’s call to action that we all “must be considerate of those who have something to hide in their fight for a fair share of America.” There certainly is no shortage of people in search of greater fairness, justice, or equity. It is up to us not just individually but collectively to choose the kinder, more inclusive path.

The Billion-Dollar Disinformation Campaign to Reelect the President – The Atlantic – John Favini (37-minute read)

For a few years now disinformation and propaganda efforts have garnered a lot more of my attention. It started with my interest in filmmaking and how it can and has been used as a facilitation mechanism. It then crossed over into my media literacy and education interests. Then it encroached into my work as a journalism teacher, particularly at a moment where the enterprise of journalism seems to be coming under a concentrated and widespread assault from a variety of sources. American mainstream media, in particular, has been slow to respond to changes both subtle or overt.

This piece from The Atlantic is excellent in its research, insight, and reporting. Yet, it kept reminding me of that old adage, “By the time it’s in the newspaper it’s too late.” While this article sharpens its focus on a current re-election campaign, the core objectives in use are not. What has changed are the tools and adapting techniques and methods being employed to amplify and extend disinformation and propaganda. It has simply gotten easier to employ, more insidious, and much more difficult to evade.

Despite the length of this piece, it carries an increasingly important point. The tools and techniques of disinformation and propaganda are now being used as a matter of course. It is no longer an exception or out of the ordinary. Now more than ever, people need to be more aware, more informed, and more clear-sighted than ever.

Education Evolutions #122

Close up of smartphone in hand flickr photo by shared under
a Creative Commons (BY-SA) license

Given that this is Super Bowl Sunday, I imagine that most people will not read any of this until later this week. As a result, this week’s selections are in the quick-read style with everything coming in around 10 minutes or less. It is a mixed bag of works with a loose theme of reading if you extend the definition to beyond simply printed text, which is a much more modern notion anyway. So, in a very meta way, enjoy reading about reading.

This week’s “If you read only one article…” is the last one. It may be because I have been engaged in a deeper dive into the topics raised in the piece, but it also serves as great reminder that the way we things are might not necessarily be the way they always were or will be. It also resonates with me because I have been deeply suspicious of the concept of social Darwinism ever since I encountered it as a high schooler. It has just never sat well with me.

Here are three+ curated articles about education, technology, and evolutions in teaching.

Inside the Podcast Brain: Why Do Audio Stories Captivate? – The Atlantic – Tiffanie Wen (5-minute read)

I have been hooked on the podcast thing almost as long as they have been around and it did kind of accelerate in the last few years with the podcast proliferation that really kicked off as mobile phones became pervasive. I listen to a handful of podcasts regularly but follow far more than I can possibly listen to in any given week, especially as I still like terrestrial radio quite a bit too. What is neat about this article is that it gets at some of why audio is so appealing. As a lot of radio people say ironically, “Radio is a very visual medium.”

I love the description of “transporting into a story as a ‘neuro ballet.'” As someone who has always enjoyed old-time radio serials, I have always wondered why there has not been much interest in radio dramas in the States, like the kind that the BBC regularly produces. Podcasts can certainly cater to those interests. However, non-fiction storytelling seems to be where podcasts have really taken off. There are so many good ones in that spae too. I also love the idea that audiobooks might soon be given more dramatic treatments.

For the Love of Books – CNN – Carol Jago (10-minute read)

Chances are if you are reading this newsletter, you are an avid reader in some way or another. Whether it is reading analog or digital media may not make much a difference to you. Given that nearly everyone reading this is of an age that grew up prior to the real digital reading divide that we find ourselves in since the leaps in mobile device development, chances are books still hold some genuine power over us. I know it certainly is the case for me and I have no shortage of digital devices on which I read too.

Yet, I found this piece by Carol Jago really inspiring. There are so many things I appreciate from the Maryanne Wolf references to the recognition that devices are never going to disappear. It is a smart piece, taking a look at what matters more when it comes to reading and what teachers can do to help cultivate some of our students into life-long readers. Some of the ideas are great and I fully expect I will try some of them in the near future. It has already given me some motivation to take a long look at my classroom library and tidy it up to make it a bit more inviting. Plus, the tips here any teacher in any subject could potentially do to some extent.

Also, I am curious about the reference to Wolf’s biliterate reading brain, especially after a former colleague and reader of this newsletter recently forwarded me this article about Wolf’s idea and current offering, Reader, Come Home: The Reading Brain in a Digital World. It also includes thoughts from the ubiquitous Daniel Willingham who always prompts more feelings of ambivalence but it is still a really good introduction to the concept of biliterate reading.

What if Competition Isn’t As “Natural” As We Think? – Slate – John Favini (8-minute read)

I have been having an ongoing conversation with a colleague about related matters to this article recently, so this article immediately caught my eye. I am really grateful to have the kinds of conversations we have had, as they force me to seriously interrogate some of these ideas and my own thoughts about them. The central question in this piece gets at least part of the heart of our discussions. The idea that humans might not be quite as competitive as we might believe is something I have devoted a lot of thought to in recent months, making me feel a bit like this article may have found me more than I found it.

That is one of the interesting subtextual wrinkles included in this piece. We, humans, tend to find what we are looking for. It is incredibly hard to remove ourselves from our culture, influences, and prevailing notions of our time. As Favini explains this was the case for Charles Darwin too, not to mention others who twisted his ideas into a social context. He goes further to highlight a lot of legitimate theory and research that undermines some of those notions. Perhaps most important is the lesson advanced here, “we must learn to recognize the impulse to naturalize a given human behavior as a political maneuver.”