The upcoming Delaware State Education Association President, Mike Matthews, just wrote an excellent post on Facebook about the rise of digital technology and personalized learning in the classroom. His post was in response to the recent announcements by various Delaware school districts of Reduction in Workforce notices going out to schools based on Governor John Carney’s proposed budget for FY2018.
For the past several years, personalized and blended learning have been strong dialogue points in education circles. The thinking behind personalized and blending learning is that it offers different environments to meet students’ needs for learning. One of those environments is digital, where some of the learning is done on devices as opposed to direct teacher instruction or small-group instruction.
There is a belief out there by some that many education reformers and corporatists are supporting personalized and blended learning because, ultimately, it could reduce personnel costs by getting rid of large numbers of teachers. Me? I’m a fan of “personalized learning” in a very basic sense: that all learning, in effect, should be personalized to meet student needs. However, I am beginning to have some concerns with the personalized and blended learning information I’m seeing as well as the propagation of 1:1 devices in classrooms across the state.
Now, don’t get me wrong. Technology is a must in today’s digital environment and students MUST be exposed to its responsible use. However, eight years ago, then-Gov. Jack Markell made a series of devastating cuts to education. And we still haven’t recuperated from that.
Governor John Carney is proposing a series of devastating cuts to his education budget now. We never saw Gov. Markell’s cuts come back to education. Will we see Gov. Carney’s cuts come back if they’re passed by the legislature? Will these layoffs — these hundreds of human beings about to lose their jobs — be victims to technology because it’s cheaper to purchase a Chromebook than it is to pay a teacher’s salary?
Two years ago, I had a very open mind about personalized learning when I was president of the Red Clay Education Association and some fellow members introduced me to personalized learning. And, to an extent, I’m still VERY open to what personalized learning is and can be. I made sure to share with those teachers that at no time should personalized learning EVER be seen as a means to layoff and cut teachers in our schools and the they agreed with that. However, I’m concerned that these heartless and cruel layoffs coming could only grow worse as policymakers embrace the idea that technology can do cheaper or better what humans can for children.
I will never accept a world where computers take the place of living, breathing, caring human beings. We must fight like hell to bring these positions back to our school districts as quickly as possible. Anything less should be cause for direct, organized action by educators and the public that supports us across the state.
Amen Mike, Amen! With that being said, the reaction of the state and local education associations to this technology push in our classroom will be instrumental in making sure that future never comes to pass. DSEA will have to be at the front of the line opposing this future. When Mike said “some believe”, those numbers are growing fast and it isn’t just a belief. It is happening in districts across the country and it will happen here if we don’t get enough educators, parents, citizens, and students to fight it.
In Delaware, the Rodel Teacher Council has been pushing personalized learning a lot in the past couple months. They met with legislators and the State Board of Education. As I have said many times, I don’t believe these teachers are the bad guys. But I don’t trust Rodel at all. For the life of me, with everything I’ve written, I can’t understand why these teachers continue to listen to Rodel and do their bidding. These teachers spend a lot of time working for Rodel with little to no pay for their time and effort. At the end of the day, Rodel is a corporation. They may say they are a non-profit, but when their CEO Dr. Paul Herdman makes over $350,000 a year, that gives me considerable pause.
The personalized learning push goes beyond computers replacing teachers though. There is the matter of massive exposure to screen time and what kind of effects that has on students. There is the massive amount of data collection. There is the presumption by many that the algorithms in many of these apps and learning programs are being used to push students toward certain types of future careers. There is the competency-based education aspect of it all that has a severe danger of putting at-risk students even further behind than their peers. While I don’t expect many to get this yet, they soon will. Right now, I am John the Baptist, wandering around in the wilderness warning everyone. A madman? No. One who would rather prophet for students than profit from students? Yes.