Within the System or Without? Mitchell and Cheek Square Off on Technology

Turns out that would-be Kentucky Education Commissioners Mitchell Chester and Dennis Cheek squared off in June, in Philadelphia. The contrasts are notable.

This from Alana Goodman at Campus Report Online:

School of Future Shock

At Philadelphia’s School of the Future (SOF), textbooks have been replaced with laptops and high schoolers are taught core curriculum through technology-based programs like YouTube and instant messenger.

SOF is a charter school in the Philadelphia School District serving mostly low-income students, and was created through a 2006 partnership with the Microsoft Corporation. But the school, once hailed as “the next big thing” by National Public Radio, is struggling to live up to these high expectations.

SOF’s original goals were to supply each student with a laptop computer that he would personally care for, open the school to the community in order to educate urban adults in technology and use technology and a project-based curriculum to increase student learning. Unfortunately, problems have been plaguing the school since the beginning: Students are unable to properly care for their laptops, there is very little community involvement and test scores have been inconclusive in measuring student achievement.

On May 28, teachers, administrators and researchers got together at the American Enterprise Institute to analyze the successes and failures of the school.

Some analysts expressed concern over what seemed like the lack of clear goals for SOF. “It’s very easy to convolute ends and means. Online learning is not the end…You need a very clear vision,” said Mitch Chester, commissioner of the Massachusetts public schools.

“When not wanting to be like what exists becomes one of the main qualities, you can’t grow on what’s good,” Chester added. “You reject what might be worth saving.”

...However, some analysts believe that SOF will never be able to foster innovation as long as it is working within the public school district.

Dennis Cheek argued that technology in schools has an inverse relationship to the strength of teachers unions. “The system is resistant to technology,” he said. “Technology is going to take some of the jobs of teachers.”

Chester E. Finn, president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, agreed that working within the system is not going to yield results. “Vendors are not reformers. Consultants are not agitators,” he said. “At the end of the day, are we talking about school reform, or are we talking about being consultants to a system that does not want to change?”

Margaret Cullinane, the director of innovation and business development for the Microsoft Corporation, disagreed that innovation could not happen within the public school districts, saying that you “can only change the system if you’re involved in the system.”

Ravitch, Finn in a 'Clash of the Titans' on Education Policy

This from the New York Sun:

In a sign of how substantially her thinking on school policy has evolved, the education historian Diane Ravitch this week is engaging in an online debate with one of her oldest friends and collaborators, the education policy analyst Chester Finn Jr.

At issue: an emerging divide among education policymakers about the best way to improve America's schools.

Everyone seems to agree that the schools are in dire straits, but there is a divide about how to solve that problem.

On one side are leaders including the schools chancellor, Joel Klein; the Reverend Al Sharpton; the federal education secretary, Margaret Spellings, and the mayor of Newark, Cory Booker, who have started an initiative called the Education Equality Project, endorsing strong accountability measures such as those currently written into No Child Left Behind as well as choice options such as charter schools.

On the other side is a group calling itself the Broader, Bolder Approach to Education, which has criticized No Child Left Behind and declared that students need help in more fields than just education to succeed, arguing for improved health care and after-school programs. That group includes the teachers union president Randi Weingarten, the labor economist Lawrence Mishel, and the former Boston school superintendent Thomas Payzant.

The debate between Mr. Finn, the president of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, and Ms. Ravitch, a trustee of Fordham, kicked off when Mr. Finn criticized the Broader, Bolder group, whose proposal Ms. Ravitch has signed.

Mr. Finn said in a Web log post that this camp reflects a dangerous move to shift away from an emphasis on academic excellence and toward a sloppier and less meaningful focus on the "whole child" that happens throughout American history.

"It's a darn shame," Mr. Finn wrote. "Yesterday's push for achievement hasn't yet produced the learning gains we need. But it may be starting to do so. The surest way to curb tomorrow's gains is to change the policy focus and ease the pressure."

He added, "As for the AFT's future direction, all I can say is that President Weingarten's early signals do no credit to Al Shanker's legacy."

Ms. Ravitch is fighting back with a counter-post on Fordham's Web site, edexcellence.net, which is billing the debate as a "Clash of the Titans."

"Will it help or harm children's academic achievement — most especially children who are living in poverty — if they have access to good pre-K programs?

Will it help or harm children's academic achievement — most especially the neediest children — if they have access to good medical care, with dental treatment, vision screening, and the like?" she writes.

She also dismisses Mr. Finn's assertion that she is opposing academic standards by criticizing No Child Left Behind, asking how the law can have worked if American students have been falling behind international competitors through its inception.

Mr. Finn's response is that while he believes Ms. Ravitch is not straying from setting high standards, he worries that others are merely searching for diversions.