A Noble Experiment

In the fall of 2006, the School District of Philadelphia and Microsoft together opened an experimental high school – The School of the Future – in a section of the city that was performing well-below the national norm. The freshman class (called “first year” students at SOF) – which graduated on June 15^th – then began a trek through a closely monitored environment, with students placed into this environment by means of a lottery system. They were asked to wear sweatshirts from a college on their first day. The technology of the classroom was state of the art and even the lesson plans were designed mostly from the ground up, wrapped in software and presented visually with lots of interactivity. Laptops and electronics replaced traditional texts and paper. The lofty goals are articulated on the Microsoft Website:

· Practice and promote digital inclusion.

· Integrate technology into every area of the learning community, including curriculum delivery, community collaboration, office support, content creation, and sharing content and assessments.

· Generate innovative education practices and new models for learning.

· Create an environment that engages all learning community members and helps to inspire passionate, personal responsibility for learning.

·

· The school even looked different: “When the Microsoft-designed School of the Future opened, the facility was a paragon of contemporary architecture, with a green roof, light-filled corridors and the latest classroom technology, all housed in a dazzling white modern building.” NPR.org (June 15^th) But students entering this school were, for the most part, performing at a grade school level; they had a lot of catching up to do, and the earliest years at SOF were… well… challenging: “The school's first set of standardized test scores last year were dismal. Only 7.5 percent of 11th graders scored proficient or higher in math; 23.4 percent scored proficient or higher in reading.” NPR

·

· To many educators, any statistics generated from this experiment were suspect. First, students had to ask to be included in the lottery in the first place – so the school only catered to families that cared about education enough to apply. Second, with so much media and academic attention, the kids were treated as if they were special by just about everyone. Tour groups were constant: over 3,000 educators and members of the press from 50 nations since SOF was founded. Third, the school even attracted reform-minded teachers determined to make the experiment work. But many questioned whether technology was even an answer, even though basic computer literacy would seem to be the minimum threshold for any education.

More ubiquitous evidence – based on multiple schools in several school districts – provides conflicting evidence on the use of new technology in the classroom: “Increasingly, though, another view is emerging: that the money schools spend on instructional gizmos isn't necessarily making things better, just different. Many academics question industry-backed studies linking improved test scores to their products. And some go further. They argue that the most ubiquitous device-of-the-future, the whiteboard -- essentially a giant interactive computer screen that is usurping blackboards in classrooms across America -- locks teachers into a 19th-century lecture style of instruction counter to the more col laborative small-group models that many reformers favor.

·

· “‘There is hardly any research that will show clearly that any of these machines will improve academic achievement,’ said Larry Cuban, education professor emeritus at Stanford University. ‘But the value of novelty, that's highly prized in American society, period. And one way schools can say they are “innovative” is to pick up the latest device.’” Washington Post (June 11^th). Or try this British study, reported on Education.Gua rdian.co.UK in 2005: “Yet - apart from evidence that using the boards benefits children who struggle in English - analysis of the year 6 Sats [British evaluation tests] in 2003 found schools kitted out with interactive whiteboards only did better than those without by a very small margin in maths and one that shrank to insignificance in English. In maths the average test score was 63.93 for whiteboard schools compared with 61.75 for non-whiteboard institutions, while the figures for English were 58.69 compared with 58.09. In 2004, even those small differences evaporated.”

·

· With all this skepticism, how did the first SOF graduating class fare? “Out of the 156 students who started school in 2006, 117 [graduated June 15^th] and 30 transferred away, which leaves only nine students who dropped out. That's better than the national graduation rate of 67% (for economically challenged West Philadelphia, where most of the students are from, it's a bit lower). But there's a still more impressive stat: Of the 117 who are graduating today, all have college plans, whether it's two-year technical school or a four-year state school. ‘In an urban education setting this is really unheard of,’ says [Microsoft’s Partners in Learning executive director Mary] Cullinane. ‘Not just in Philly but across the country.’” FastCompany.com (June 15^th).

·

· So take away the highest tech, the media and academic spotlight and focus on the rest: families who prioritize education enough to apply to the best programs, kids who feel special who are given enough resources and attention and teachers committed to reform for the general good. These would seem to be essentials that each and every school district in America should accomplish; America’s priorities really can’t be that hard to set.

·

I’m Peter Dekom, and I guess you can tell where I place education on the priority ladder.