What would get Susan Ohanian, past national Teacher of the year, to say the following:
"What they're adoring, clearly, is big money and corporate power. They couldn't possibly be admiring curriculum. Well, come to think of it, the curriculum is nutty, and I suppose innovation is all in the eye of the beholder."
Ohanian's spirited (read: not-so-impressed-and-quite-sarcastic) statement lies within a longer evaluation of the recently opened $63 million Microsoft School of the Future in Philadelphia that can be found within the District Administrator "The Pulse" blog.
Anything that carries the Gates' fingerprint, let alone the "...of the future" tag, shall grab attention. And certainly criticism. Especially when you dive into the inner folds of the curriculum itself. I must admit that much of my fascination with this project over the last year has been within the school design realm, but the real marrow lies within the way that they will engage kids one project/lesson at a time.
The most intriguing elements within Ohanian's criticism revolve around the to-PowerPoint-or-not-to-PowerPoint debate that seems to be so rarely discussed within the halls of K-12 schools from sea to shining sea. This is not just a criticism of this school...but she takes the opportunity to make it seem that only the School of the Future is saddled with a propensity to use this ubiquitous tool in replacement of real engagement. She brings up Tufte (a nice little intellectual notch point here) as well as the nearly classic mention of the Gettysburg Address done a la PPt that someone created not too long ago (always worth a look, if you want a laugh and a cringe). I think she's making a fairly superficial reading of the school's web site and a cursory glance at its curriculum into something far richer than it deserves to be (until she's seen the school in action up close and in person), but the fact that she's opening up the door to the weaknesses of PPt in K-12 classrooms is a bravo moment for me.
The only element that I do wish she'd take more time with is the comment that a school requires a library to be a school:
Philadelphia taxpayers paid %63 million for a school designed...where kids don't have books and the school itself has no library. $63 million and no library."
I'm guessing by the syntax of that sentence that the short 2nd sentence with the high-dollar price tag and the follow up of zero library space is supposed to create a universal jaw-drop across the media wires? A high school in the center of a major US city with access to public and university libraries at every city turn...but not dedicating square footage to 'house' books...and we're supposed to feel somehow that a generation of kids will lose the advantages of their scholarly forefathers? Truly?
Perhaps she should sit down with Warlick or Lehmann or Jukes or Prensky or Richardson or Fryer or any number of educators that are running mach speed towards the very future she poo-poo's.
[To be fair, I have a lot of respect for her, The Pulse blog is built to engage debate, and frankly she's got lots of company in the libary=learning camp...but she's got thick skin and she is taking on a easy target, so I'm sure she'll be okay with this tiny little blog post in response]
I forgive her the criticism of the Gates' effect and a school that might possibly be over-exaggerated in terms of its name. At the same time, I do think her CV/reputation suggests that a deeper review of the default argument that books=learning. Truth be told, books are tools. And a tool without purpose or spirit will not create learning on its own. No matter how much we revere books.
Heck, if the Microsoft school had created a $62 million library with a million dollars worth of laptops (or desks and paper and blackboards) to be used in whatever leftover space could be found, it still wouldn't get to the heart of the issue of learning or engagement or helping kids be response-able in the future. It is just not that simple. And it will never be that simple again.
What do you think?
Note:
- Philadelphia Inquirer article about the school's first day
- Microsoft's own press release about the opening of the school this week
Susan Ohanian's commentary is misleading, at best. The implication is that the School of the Future is using Microsoft Lesson Plans to teach their curriculum. The lesson plans to which she refers appear on the Microsoft Education Website and are simply suggested lessons that are specific to using particular Microsoft products, many of which were submitted by teachers to share their ideas with others from around the country. http://www.microsoft.com/Education/LessonPlans.mspx
If you review this Website, you will see that the lessons are organized in two ways: by a particular content area and by the specific Microsoft product a teacher might want to use. The Smart Board lessons to which she refers are similar to the Microsoft lessons. In reviewing this site it is clear that these are simply educator resources. http://www.education.smarttech.com/ste/en-US/Ed+Resource/
I find no evidence that these are lessons that teachers will be using to teach the curriculum in the School of the Future. Rather, I would expect quite the opposite based on a recent article in eSchool News about the School of the Future which states: “Not only will students enrolled in the School of the Future be expected to meet all of the usual standards of accountability and testing that their counterparts throughout the state are required to meet; they also will be the poster children for a new approach to learning, one that leverages technology and creative thinking to meet the demands of the 21st century.” (http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/showStoryRSS.cfm?ArticleID=6579)
The School of the Future differentiates itself from other PA schools by the fabulous, technology-rich learning environment that has been created; not by the curriculum or the lessons that will developed by teachers. Further, I applaud any major corporation or foundation that is supporting K-12 education to the extent that Microsoft has done to benefit students.
Marion Ginopolis, Director, MI-LIFE, Michigan Leadership Improvement Framework Endorsement http://www.mi-life.org
Posted by: Marion Ginopolis | September 13, 2006 at 03:42 AM