What do you think are the factors that lead schools to lag behind private industry in technology evolution?
This may become my Doctoral Dissertation. I am just wondering what educators feel are the factors (Hint: It's probably not just about money), that affect the ability for education in general to stay current with technology sophistication.
Frame of reference: I recently read that the US Educational system ranked 39th, after coal mining, in timely utilization of available technological resources. Hmmmmm.....
Frame of reference: I recently read that the US Educational system ranked 39th, after coal mining, in timely utilization of available technological resources. Hmmmmm.....
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Aparna Vashisht on
-
I think that it has a lot to do with time more than anything else.
-
Permalink Reply by Kev on
-
Not trying to derail but were any other government-run industries ranked?
If not, well, draw your own conclusions.
-
Permalink Reply by Anthony VonBank on
-
I no longer have access to the article, but I remember institutions like US Military, Postal Service, and City government as being on the list. Sorry I cannot cite right now, but yeah, it wasn't just about being government.
-
Permalink Reply by Ed Jones on
-
Hey, Anthony! Good, stimulating question. The factors are easily seen from outside education, but perhaps not so easily grasped by those within; those unfamiliar with how the rest of the tech world operates.
Answer #1: The way educators organize and interact as professionals, The current structure treats Teachers as the center of education; and treats those technologists who want to help as at best adjunct, and more often, as outsiders. The teacher is the link to the customer (the child), the technology developer serves at the whim of the teacher. Other, innovative, organizations are not so structured.
Indigo points out the budget reasons. Yet budgets are merely human creations. They reflect the values of the groups that implement them. Educators put their value in fully certified and tenured salaries--not in innovation or end results. For example, there is no evidence at all that a masters degreed teacher results in better education. Yet most school systems divert significant funds to employing such teachers.
This is not to argue that the current pot of money will do all the job. Its to explain why the pot doesn't grow to meet the technical need. If the Army needs a new robot or piece of educational software, it first goes to the marketplace and asks vendors to address that need. Several respond, with varying prices, and the pentagon then adjusts its priorities to get or not get that system. One implication: Except for leaders, the Army discourages expensive, senior labor.
In education, its an opposite process. First all of the senior teachers negotiate their best pay package, and build in raises for seniority. Then they build processes which make sure that the number of senior teachers is maximized. Then they build in incentives for Masters and other training. Then they support the classified staff so that their costs are maximized. Finally they hire a couple over-burdened tech people and seek grant money for systems and software. Tech is at the bottom of their value stream.
Still, this intra-mural process is not where we get the real problem. The problem is in the relationship this creates with both the public and the software developers. There is no process left for integrated system-of-systems development. Or even well tested standalone widgets.
Consortia--which would serve as the equivalent of the Air Force Materiel Command or the Marine Corps' Systems Engineering Directorate--are highly discouraged and sometime fought outright by the State Education Associations. The latter, rather than being part of the solution, stand athwart the future and yell "Stop".
The public, then, sees all this and shakes its head. Studies show the public is willing to send more dollars--if they feel they will be well spent. Usually they're not so convinced.
Thus, there is not enough money in the pot for software R&D, no processes for properly stimulating innovation, few success stories to brag upon, and a public unhappy with the net results. A vicious circle.
I know: I've been trying to pry a wee bit or R&D funds loose for almost a decade.
-
Permalink Reply by Jonathan Wylie on
-
One word. Money.
Money for hardware, money for software, money for staff development and training, money to buy teachers time to collaborate and explore the technologies, money for rolling replacement programs, money to hire technicians, etc. etc.
One word. Money.
-
Permalink Reply by Jay Trevorrow on
-
I am certain there is virtue in each of the responses posted so far. Having spent 35 years in public and independent school education as a classroom teacher and for 20 years now in technology, I could cite instances supporting any of the comments posted earlier.
I would add an additional thought to this conversation, involving the stability of what we call school. For many children, in an era when so many institutions are in constant change, family, religion,community, schools are the most stable, predictable environments in their lives. This is a genuine virtue in the lives of these children and has tremendous support in the community. Repeatedly, local schools are given good grades by their local communities, grades which reflect stability, consistency, security. And these attitudes remain strong even when the national conversation regarding education is laden with criticism. Technology, being an instrument of change (shifts in the "experts" in the classroom, challenges professionals as a foreign resource, moves learning beyond time and place and more) runs upstream against the educational value of stability. Education is victimized by this strength. I have seen this at numerous schools: well funded, poorly funded, those which offer professional development and those which do not. The challenge is always the same. Schools are structured to resist change, in schedules, personnel, experts, calendars, times of day and financial structures to name a few. At some level technology can pose challenges to all that we hold reassuring and predictable in schools, and our belief in that predictability as an asset in the lives of children.
-
Permalink Reply by Sylvia Martinez on
-
Without the threat of loss of market share, there is no incentive for schools to innovate or take risks. Status quo is a low risk state.
-
-
All great points... I wonder if the change issue is more notable than the technology issue. Thoughts.
-
-
and our belief in that predictability as an asset in the lives of children.>>
I'm not trying to de-reail but "Predictability" goes against almost every concept of attention-holding used in history. When does our brain turn off? When something becomes predictable. I think we, as teachers, have taken this concept of a safe and stable environment too far. Yes, we should be predictable in procedures but not in content and not in curriculum.
All change in schools happens glacially. It isn't until the ice really cracks that you get a flood of change. You then sit at that new equilibrium until it cracks again. With no reason to crack it ourselves as mentioned above we end up rather stagnant.
There's a reason classrooms today looks strikingly similar to those 50 years ago and it isn't because it works and it isn't because of money.
Report
Win at School
Commercial Policy
If you are representing a commercial entity, please see the specific guidelines on your participation.
Badge
Follow
Awards:
© 2024 Created by Steve Hargadon.
Powered by
