The Sioux Falls School District has hired Tennessee company Ombudsman Educational Services to provide alternative credit-earning opportunities for immigrant and refugee students whose age, school background, and limited English proficiency make the traditional classroom a bad fit.
I invite readers and taxpayers to critique this move on numerous levels:
- Should a public school district be able to pay Ombudsman $4000 per student, essentially skimming $491 off the amount the state aid formula says it costs to educate a student?
- Should a South Dakota school district transfer its tax dollars to an out-of-state contractor to conduct its statutory duty to provide public education?
- Should a public school contract its public duties out to a private company?
I welcome comments on the above questions and others about this business arrangement. But I'd like to focus on the instructional model used at the "Multicultural Academy" run by Ombudsman on our dimes:
Each student at Ombudsman schools is assigned a computer to work independently at their own pace. Last year, the company consulted with the Global Institute for Literacy and Language Development to adjust its model for English Language Learners. The company chose Sioux Falls for a two-year pilot program.
...The school day will be bookended by small group lessons, but otherwise students will mostly work on their own with the teachers available to help [Josh Verges, "New Sioux Falls School to Aid Immigrants, Refugees," that Sioux Falls paper, August 15, 2012].
For parking each kid at a computer all day and saying, "Do your own thing," I'd think we could cut the per-student cost down from $4000 to $2000.
But let's not confuse technology with teaching:
A set of podcasts is the 21st-century equivalent of a textbook, not the 21st-century equivalent of a teacher. Every age has its autodidacts, gifted people able to teach themselves with only their books. Woe unto us if we require all citizens to manifest that ability.
Of course, computers do much more than deliver podcasts. They enable new forms of communicating. They present information in incredibly understandable and previously unimaginable ways. They even interact with students, correcting assignments for which there are clearly delineated standards of error and success. They can greatly expand the power of the multiple-choice quiz; they can learn which drills remedy which errors. Computers are getting ever better at correcting grammar and expressions in natural language.
These capacities should be celebrated. But they should not be confused with the training provided by one mind interacting with another—when, for example, a teacher discerns what is on a student's mind (even though the thought may be novel and half-formed); sees how it relates to the material; and knows how to question, encourage, challenge, or otherwise prompt the student to find his or her own way out of confusion, to a clearer expression of thought or a more powerful argument or analysis [Pamela Hieronymi, "Don't Confuse Technology with College Teaching," The Chronicle of Higher Education, August 13, 2012].
Pamela Hieronymi speaks of higher education, but her words apply at least as much to high school education. Maybe plunking immigrant and refugee students in front of computers is the best the Sioux Falls School District can afford to do with its growing population of newcomers to America. But it's a poor welcome to America, and a poor substitute for real teaching.
Good blog entry, Cory.
I would quibble though with this: "But let’s not confuse technology with teaching"
Students at the Alternative to the Alternative School have not learned much being "taught" by a human. "Teaching" in traditional sense, even good teaching, has not been sufficient to move these kids from A to B. As you well know, union rules and seniority puts the best & most experienced teachers with the best students.
What does this portend for these HS graduates in our society? Employees/graduates who cannot or will not listen to or learn from their mentors or supervisors or colleagues will not succeed. Period.
So, whether they have a HS diploma or a GED, they're still not likely to contribute. How many opportunities are enough? I say Joe Foss is it. Enough spending limited resources on "students" who are not likely to contribute, EVEN assuming they get a GED.
Just imagine how big this will become if we have merit pay.
There will be an incentive to push every kid that isn't going to score well on on the standardized tests into these programs.
I guess my assumptions about this school were a bit off, I apologize for the presumptuousness. Still, I'd like to see a profile of the student body to confirm what they say is true and not just a dumping ground for students that are behind track generally. If it is truly all non-native English speakers, I don't understand why they can't just buy a copy of Rosetta Stone for each of them, prep them for the TOEFL, and leave the GED prep work to actual educators. I'm curious how standardized test scores play into this.
Cory, are you advocating expansion of computer-based instruction saving taxpayers $2000 per student?
With such weak reading comprehension skills, I think you might have been stuck in this program yourself, Michael.
Cory said -
For parking each kid at a computer all day and saying, “Do your own thing,†I’d think we could cut the per-student cost down from $4000 to $2000.
Computers are being used everyday to save money on instruction. In higher ed, we have the increased use of online classes...and those classes have no state support - students pay full rate. Districts are using computer-based instruction for credit recovery right now at the high school level.
Mr. Black, that's a great idea. We could save even more of my tax dollars and cut aid to state schools. Maybe give some of that money straight to the best teachers who deserve it.
That might be our answer to keeping more kids in state, too. We just need to make it so they can't get into out of state universities. We've been going about this all wrong.
I think you have to look at it from each student's perspective. Each situation will differ. A lot depends on the age of the student, the subjects, etc.
An older student with limited English is probably going to be able to make more progress learning math or science in his or her native language, while they also pick up basic skills in separate ESL classes. I don't think there are adequate numbers of bilingual math and science teachers or interpreters. So, computer aided lessons in certain subject areas are a good second option.
If the student is in elementary school, it makes more sense to have his or her education more geared toward obtaining English proficiency.
There are a few things that I want to address topics from both your article and some of the comments.
1. Your assumption that Sioux Falls just happens to be "too busy" to help immigrant refugee students is just simple not true and is making a claim without any warrant behind it (as a former debate coach you should know better). The number of hours that Sioux Falls and the schools put into teaching immigrants is extensive. Washington alone in 2010 had 238 ESL students and 49 migrant education students. That's basically the size (or larger) of a lot of A schools. Numbers aren't an excuse, but it tells you that there are quite a few students we are dealing with.
2. Your idea that because it is self-paced at a computer means that students will just "do their own thing" is again, making a huge claim without any warrant. In years past I worked with students (and will this year for one class) where students are working on-line at their own pace - I don't just sit there and ignore them - what it allows is for the teacher to do a lot more one-on-one work with the students, which not surprisingly, these are the kids that will need it the most!
3. You make the assumption as well that we are just taking any and all refugee immigrants and "plunking them in front of a computer" like when they walk in we just shift them to this place. While I don't know exactly how students are picked to go to the school, but believe me when I tell you that from my experience, refugee immigrant students are a huge focus of my school with a variety of programs designed to help ELL students succeed and graduate.
4. These are not students who are being shifted over because of low test scores as one of the comments said - they are still counted in the district numbers even if they are there. Additionally, the assumption that any school would attempt to do that is wrong on numerous levels and again, without warrant.
So, while I applaud your work on keeping everyone honest and making sure schools are doing the right things. However, I think you jumped the gun on this one. While its easy to say "Sioux Falls is too busy to teach immigrants, so they just hired out a company to teach them" its a lot more complicated required work and effort to look deeper into the issue and realize that there is a lot more going on and that this is actually an attempt to improve the education for these kids and have them succeed.
Travis, I appreciate the perspective from in the trenches, and I'm looking forward to learning more about this program. You flesh out an impression I made from reading one newspaper article.
Just to confirm: you're seeing the technology open the door for more one-on-one contact, not less? I'd love that result, and not just because it refutes Julie's argument-for-the-sake-of-argument that teaching doesn't work for everybody. This isn't some union ploy, Julie; Travis is talking about the same sort of real teaching of which Hieronymi speaks in the original post. That real teaching matters.
--This isn’t some union ploy, Julie;
Huh? Never said it was.
In fact, if anything, sitting troubled dropouts in front of a computer is anti-union.
--That real teaching matters.
To the kids in the Alternative to the Alternative School, teaching (good, bad, great) does not matter.
Ask anyone who deals with them.
Julie, you mentioned union rules in your opening comments. Don't play GOP coy with your insinuations. Stand by your words, or use them less loosely. (And check your e-mail.)
--Don’t play GOP coy with your insinuations.
Don't label me as GOP without something to back it up.
My "insinuation" is that it is frequently the practice and/or SDEA rules that the best/longest serving teachers get to pick & choose first what they want to teach.
You know & I know that younger or inexperienced teachers begin at the bottom: the best teachers get to teach the best students. That's the reality. There's nothing coy about it.
President Obama's weekly radio address highlighted the importance of teachers and adequate funding.
" There’s nothing more important to our country’s future than the education we give our kids. And there’s no one more important to that education than the person at the front of the classroom.
Teachers matter. Most work tirelessly, with modest pay, sometimes digging into their own pocket for school supplies – just to make a difference. They give everything for our kids – and in return, we should invest in them.
But here’s the thing: this year, several thousand fewer educators will be going back to school. Since 2009, we’ve lost more than 300,000 education jobs, in part, because of budget cuts at the state and local level.
Think about what that means for our country. At a time when the rest of the world is racing to out-educate America; these cuts force our kids into crowded classrooms, cancel programs for preschoolers and kindergarteners, and shorten the school week and the school year.
That’s the opposite of what we should be doing as a country. States should be making education a priority in their budgets, even in tough fiscal times. And Congress should be willing to help out – because this affects all of us."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/18/weekly-address-congress-should-back-plan-hire-teachers
--States should be making education a priority in their budgets, even in tough fiscal times.
On what basis do you believe that more spending means a better education for our students?
Again, the red herring. Now you're just trying to drag us all back to another tired talking point that doesn't directly address the issue in this post.
Red herring?
Are you referring to Jana'a post or my inquiry?
You, Julie. You. It's always all about you.
Jana:
--President Obama’s weekly radio address highlighted the importance of teachers and adequate funding.
Jana:
--–States should be making education a priority in their budgets, even in tough fiscal times.
Me: On what basis do you believe that more spending means a better education for our students?
Jana stated that adequate funding should be a priority--thus, my query was entirely relevant.
Where's the red herring? If my post was a red herring, then it was a follow up to Jana's red herring. So, where's your scolding of Jana's red herring? Gee, could it be that the only red herrings you see are those that you disgaree with?
At what point do your accusations of "red herrings" become well, overused and this rendered meaningless?
Maybe you need to review the definition of a red herring?