Artificial Intelligence: by B. Keller

On a Sunday morning news program, Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger made an interesting remark when he was asked what was the most important concern for the airline industry to address. Sullenberger answered that although planes are much more technologically advanced today than ever before, there must be a greater emphasis on the fundamentals of what makes planes fly and what the instruments are supposed to do so if, as was the case with him, something happens to prevent those instruments from working or doing what they are supposed to do, the pilot can do the job of the instruments. He or she may not be able to crunch the data at the same rate as the computerized instruments, but the problem will still be resolved.

Sullenberger’s statement is both powerful and true. As I look around, everywhere there is a determined, purposed plan to eliminate the human factor. From schools, to banks, to token booths, people are being replaced. Think about this for a minute. If Sullenberger had only been able to use his instruments that failed that day he landed on the Hudson, what is the likelihood things would have turned out as well as they did?

It amazes me that so much trust and faith is put into technology. After all, what technology did Bill Gates have before he created Microsoft? What about Steve Jobs? What about George Washington Carver or Lewis Latimer? I have nothing against technology, but the idea that its existence precludes the purpose or the use of the human mind is a big problem for me. In my travel as an ATR, I heard all the talk about the importance of critical thinking, but I see little or no evidence of it. Students use computer programs that do not allow them to “work out” their answers, to cross out and start over. Many programs do not allow students to go back if they figure out later they have made a mistake.

In my classes, I gave short answer (not multiple choice) tests so students had to be able to explain their answers to prove to me they understood, that they had thought their answers out, in order to get credit. Computers can’t do short answers, they can’t read and evaluate answers, they can‘t ask the student, “How did you arrive at this answer?” or “Why do you say this?” The movement toward A.I. revolves around one algorithm to determine that. How is technology encouraging thinking as reformers claim?

Sullenberger’s statement was powerful not just for the airlines, but for society as a whole, and especially education. Technology may calculate faster, and find the answers more quickly, but it cannot think and it cannot last forever. Given these facts, it just might be a good idea to know and to understand how and why things work without technology, so that if the day ever comes when the technology fails, we will all be able to “get our planes down safely”, too.

And now driverless cars? Teacherless classrooms?

Advertisement

News Flash: Teachers Love teaching… without Federal and State Oppression

 

Really? No “sh-t”, Sherlock.

In the latest (May 2016) Center On Education Policy report entitled: Listen to Us: Teacher Views and Voices, teachers across the country were polled on a number of questions regarding their profession. Questions included: why they entered teaching; what is most rewarding; their greatest challenges; working with economically disadvantaged (Why can’t they say POOR?); their attitudes toward their school, job, and colleagues; and, how well their opinions are received.

First, the positives:

The most significant, if not also the most obvious, findings are that:

• 68% become teachers to make a difference in students’ lives
• 45% said they become teachers to help students reach their full potential
• 82% said the most rewarding aspect of teaching was making a difference in students’ lives
• 69% said it was to see students succeed academically
• 60% said they liked their schools and colleagues
• 94% said they do some sort of collaborative work and 90% of those found it helpful and a good use of their time.

Again, these are not surprises. Teachers have always been altruists who have, perhaps, given up more lucrative occupations to work with children for those reasons. They have also been generally “kind” and “generous” in their reactions to questions about their schools and colleagues. Not exactly pollyannaish, on the whole they tend to be more complimentary then derogatory, unless they feel put upon by outside factors.

So, when the questions turned to what the most challenging things about teaching are we clearly see the impact of the past 16 years of corporate/foundation fed federal and state policies.

The greatest challenges come from externally imposed policies and constantly changing demands. However, as alarming as the following numbers may be, to me they are still low,  because many teachers are optimists, while many are fearful of saying what they really think, even in a survey.

• 46% cited these policies as obstacles to good teaching
• 33% noted that constant changes made not only their jobs tougher, but also students’ lives rougher.
• 60% feel their enthusiasm has lessened
• 49% said the new stresses and disappointment are not really worth it and would leave teaching if they could get a higher paying job.

They feel their voices are not heard anymore. They feel they have lost control of their work. Consider this dichotomy.

• Although 53% agreed that their opinions are considered at their school  (not a high percentage), they feel they are not heard at much higher percentages at the district level (76%), State (94%) or federal (94%). It is the latter two that have dictated policy and practice in many districts since 2001.

I feel their pain. I know too many fabulous teachers and administrators who resigned or retired early because of that push-pull. We are talking about college and post-graduate educated professionals who love working with their kids and colleagues. They love the actual work of being a teaching professional but the dictated top down policies made by non-educators kill their love for their job.

The last factor that has added stress and dissatisfaction to their work has been the amount of time used for testing and preparing for tests. Obviously this is directly caused by the top down policies they feel are adversely affecting their work with kids. It is the testing, the designed schedules and curricula for test prep that are daggers to the heart.

• They believe they spend too much time preparing for tests (62% state, 51% district).

• Showing their concern for their students, an overwhelming 81% believe students spend too much time taking any of these mandated tests.

• There is an obvious unspoken result here as the vast majority, (86%) would keep teacher developed tests.

The report tells us that they are not against all standardized tests, only the amount and frequency. There are obviously some that are deemed important (for example high school exit exams such as the NYS Regents exams). The unspoken factor is who makes up these tests. Is it grade level and subject teachers or an outside entity such as Pearson?

Is it then a surprise that depending on the area in the USA, the percentages of teachers who leave the profession with 5 or fewer years of experience range from 17% to over 50%? (Gray & Taie, 2015, Ingersoll and Merrill, 2012).

More depressing is the fact that fewer and fewer potential teachers even consider the profession anymore. The US Department of Education (2015) reports enrollment in teacher preparation programs has dropped nationally and precipitously in some states.

The report is fascinating and provides a great deal of information, but as in any other poll, the numbers have a margin of error. It is my opinion that the margin of error leans to a greater reporting of positives and lesser reporting of negatives. Contrary to the stereotype, it is generally who teachers  are, optimistic altruists who would prefer to see the better side of things as we make a difference in students’ lives, help students reach their full potential, and see them succeed academically.

Good Teaching: co written by Bernie Keller

Good teaching is a lot like a good acting. The script gives the actor a framework, a focus or direction, but what makes the play work is the way the actors respond to and play off each other. This relationship is what takes the words off the page and turns them into, living, breathing ideas voiced by real characters. This relationship takes time to develop and cannot be developed in a sterile, “scripted” environment.

For all of the reforms, neologisms, twenty-first century ideas and hoo-hah that have been advocated and espoused to” fix” education, not one of them has discussed or focused on this element, this relationship. One very good reason for this is that very few, if any of the reformers have ever been teachers. They may have taught for two or three years before professing themselves as being ready to lead and abandoning teaching to move into administration, but they weren’t actually teachers. Few ever became teachers in the true sense of the word because there is much more to teaching than just standing up in front of a room or using a Smart Board. They were more like actors memorizing a script, not acting out the ideas and emotions. Anyone who has ever “taught” would tell you that teaching is about developing relationships, about learning how to “hear” students’ questions and answers to get them where you know they must be (while getting them to think they did this all by themselves).

Like coaching, acting and parenting, there is no one-size-fits-all instructional manual or playbook. Like those areas, teaching is hard work, so we tend to be very skeptical of those “experts” and “reformers” who ran from the classroom to become the “leaders” of those to stay in the classroom to develop those relationships.

Not only does it take time to develop the individual, one-on-one relationship between teacher and each student, it also takes time to connect or develop that relationship with the school’s community including the parents and other siblings. Those relationships encourage students to “trust” you, to believe in you because other children, brothers, sisters, cousins, parents, and in some cases, their grandparents have developed that trust in you. That takes time.

Good teaching cannot be mandated or developed through a core curriculum. In the best-case scenario, these are only scripts with stage directions. They neither create nor guarantee good teaching. Good teaching is a composite, an amalgam. It is the combination of time, planning, commitment and the development of a relationship that turns lesson plans into living, breathing ideas students can take in and make a permanent part of their lives, which as one student wrote, “… will be the basis for now and many years in the future.”

Several years ago, there was a commercial for an investment firm that stated, “We make money the old fashioned way: we earn it.” Like the money in that commercial, if you want good teaching, you’re going to have to do it the old fashioned way: you’re going to have to earn it, you’re going to have to develop it and its relationships.

To paraphrase Joe Ehrmann, in his book InsideOut Coaching, a [teacher] “realizes the power of the [teaching] platform to inspire, motivate, and produce positive changes” in his or her [students]. “He or she is acutely mindful of the moral, social, emotional, and psychological needs of young people.” They “offer individual support and encouragement…and have a clear vision for the desired impact on their [students’] lives.”

That’s going to take time and work: not reform

Bernie and Dave

2 guys from the Bronx.