Category — Uncategorized

If I were to ask you how much time per day children and teens spend with various media – computers, televisions, video games, etc – what would you say?

Would you imagine it is more time than young people spend in a school on any given day?

In a recent study by the Kaiser Family Foundation called GENERATION M2: Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds (January 2010) they found that young people spend 7.5 hours per day engaging with various media – but because of multi-tasking they pack 10.75 hours of stuff into that 7. 5 hours (and that’s every single day). And that’s the average! 11-14 year olds pack in 11:53 per day (nearly 12 hours) in total media exposure!

In addition, texting is NOT part of this study however 7th to 12th graders report spending about 1 hour and 35 minutes per day sending or receiving text messages.

Here’s a quote from a press release about that study:

With technology allowing nearly 24-hour media access as children and teens go about their daily lives, the amount of time young people spend with entertainment media has risen dramatically, especially among minority youth, according to a study released today by the Kaiser Family Foundation.  Today, 8-18 year-olds devote an average of 7 hours and 38 minutes (7:38) to using entertainment media across a typical day (more than 53 hours a week).  And because they spend so much of that time ‘media multitasking’ (using more than one medium at a time), they actually manage to pack a total of 10 hours and 45 minutes (10:45) worth of media content into those 7½ hours.

The amount of time spent with media increased by an hour and seventeen minutes a day over the past five years, from 6:21 in 2004 to 7:38 today.  And because of media multitasking, the total amount of media content consumed during that period has increased from 8:33 in 2004 to 10:45 today.

Assuming this is true, what do you think the implications are for schools and schooling? 

If young people spend approximately 6 hours per day in the schooling environment (not counting extra-curricular activities) doing what we might call single tasking while spending about 7.5 hours per day multi-tasking with technology what chance do schools have in getting and keeping their attention – let alone getting them to learn anything?

And, young people spend time using media 7.5 hours per day seven days per week, 365 days per year.

This blog has been attempting to explore the difference between schooling and education. One of the key models I’ve developed to explain this difference is something I call the Spheres of Influence model. The concept originated in some work we did with a school district in southern California back in the early 90s.

The model attempts to visualize several things. 1) Schools operate under a control and compliance operating principle. 2) The organizing principle is a hierarchy however that can be shown in a different way 3) All human beings want to have some control over themselves as well their environment. 4) the model attempts to show different spheres of influence from a systems perspective.

The model begins with the young person in the middle and moves out from there. The classroom is the first sphere of influence, then the school, then the school district. The school board has the most influence over the district with the state department of education influencing the boards and the federal department influencing the states.

The image above is a venn diagram showing these spheres of influence. It’s not to scale or meant to show the difference or amount of influence each sphere has over the other. This model by itself can be a catalyst for conversations about improvements and changes in the system that might be beneficial to the overall outcomes of the system.

At the same time we can also draw another model which reflects the influences in the young person’s life outside of the schooling system. These sets of influences can be considered the education environment (note: I will need to define what I mean by schooling vs education in another blog post).

This set of influences again start with the young person in the center. The family is the immediate sphere of influence around the young person, then the neighborhood and the community. Moving out from there is the city, the state, and then the nation.

The image above left is a venn diagram of these spheres of influence.

Note that the specific types of influences are not shown nor are the degrees of influence each sphere has over the other. Media of all types will show up in this sets of influences.

Again this model can serve in a number of capacities when thinking about making changes or improvements to the lives of young people.

In light of the research shown in the report mentioned above one simple way of looking at these things can be time. A young person spends more time in the model I’m calling education then they do in the model I’m calling schooling.

Research has also shown that young people spend up to 16% of their time in the schooling environment while they spend up to 84% of their time in what I’m calling the education environment.

The model at the top of the page, while not precisely to scale, attempts to show the situation described here.

These models, taken separately or together can provide a perspective and some food for thought when engaging in a process exploring influences in young people’s lives as well as changes that might be made in schools in order to be relevant in today’s world.

What do you think is most important in looking at these models? What kinds of things could you imagine schools doing in order to put them in the education business? What questions do these models raise?

What are the implications of the use and influence of technology and media on these models? and what should be changed in the system of schools and schooling to take advantage of technology and media?

Here are several links to the press release and to the report: Generation M2: Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds.

A recent study put out by the Department of Education shows that students using online methods of learning actually perform better than those who just learn in the classroom. That shouldn’t come as any surprise if we really understood what’s happening in the classroom – or paid any attention to the rise in the number of users of computers and other devices accessing the internet.

Why would it be a surprise that people learn more when they have choice, can take their time, and learn what they want to learn when they want to learn it?

Or why would it be a surprise that a blended situation – some online and some face to face – would produce better results than just one or the other?

What is surprising is that the Department of Education would publish such a study.

To me this is looking in the wrong place for something that isn’t really that important. Online courses simply replicate a methodology that is really only valuable to a small percentage of the population. Rote learning or drill and practice isn’t really an optimal strategy for either online or face to face learning. So replicating what is done in the classrooms in an online environment isn’t any better. What would be interesting to me would be seeing a change in the methods used to learn in either situation. What about experiences? What about making connections to the rest of life? What about theory? What about learning for deeper meaning and wisdom?

If there was ever any doubt, people involved in schools and schooling must see this SlideShare Presentation:

Wow! my blog is now listed on Alltop.

Not familiar with Alltop? Check out their site – they aggregate news and blogs under specific topic headings. Check it out.

Here’s the area where I am listed – http://education.alltop.com/ (it’s at the very bottom – but hey, at least I’m there).

When I first started working with schools on a more regular basis (back in the early 90s) I understood from the people I worked with that graduation rates in the US were about 70% (or said in the negative, dropout rates were around 30%). 

Again I am struck by the dichotomy that exists in public education – and that rational, thinking, and caring people continue to do things that harm children.

On the one hand there is ‘evidence’ (please note I am saying that with tongue in cheek!) that incentives are good and help raise test scores. In that same hand there are programs where students are being paid to get good grades or test scores and there are programs to ‘incent’ teachers to raise test scores by giving them pay raises or some kind of bonus. There are people that point to statistics that these things are not only working but they are good. I can imagine these things ‘work’ for some short-term gain but it’s another thing to say they are ‘good.’

Tying Cash Awards to AP-Exam Scores Seen as Paying Off
Is there anything wrong with receiving $500 for a test score? What if that inducement seems to help pull up SAT scores and college-enrollment rates among disadvantaged students?

In the other hand we see recent research that shows this focus on high stakes testing is causing a shift in teaching behavior that results in leaving lots of students behind.

It takes a lot of courage to look at the actual state of our public school system – and more courage to do something about it. But it starts with being about to really understand what is going on. Here’s a great interactive map of Washington, DC schools (130 of them) and some of the conditions they are in.

This map shows teacher quality, crime, health, safety, building maintenance and other data.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/interactives/dcschools/scorecard.html

When it comes right down to it most, if not all, of what is happening in education is about people. People make decisions and choices and people determine what is or is not going to be apart of our school system.

As I’ve written before, the purpose of a system is what it does. What a system does betrays the thinking of the people involved in it. Much of that thinking is known and purposeful but some of it is not known.

I’ve also written before that we have a ‘school system’ NOT an ‘education system.’ The distinction is important. The free public school system is designed to ‘school’ the population (the masses). Even venerable private schools are falling to the same thinking that drives the rest of schooling.

Here’s a story in the NY Times about a private school that finds one of its well liked and valuable teachers being censored by the very institution that professes to ‘educate’ its students. The purpose of a system is what it does – NOT what it says it does. This school that professes to educate is CHOOSING to lose this valuable asset (and several other teachers).

When it comes right down to it this is about people. It’s about how people think, what they want, and the values they have about life, about people, about freedom, and about challenging the status quo.

Private School, Public Fuss
By ALLEN SALKIN • Published: November 18, 2007
IT was an “O captain! My captain!” moment.
‘GREAT IS THE TRUTH’ A respected New York school gets some unwanted attention.
Andrew Trees had been informed that his contract at the Horace Mann School, one of the nation’s most academically respected high schools, would not be renewed, and this May he was in his final days. A history teacher who had taught at the private school for six years, Mr. Trees had written a satirical novel, “Academy X,” about an elite school where students and parents resort to bribery and blackmail to ensure Ivy League college admission.