Re - Engaging American Youth Through Education

Engaging American Youth via Education.

On September 11th a President spoke to a nation,

What constitutes the bulwark of our liberty and independence? It is not . . . the guns of our war steamers, or the strength of our gallant and disciplined army . . . Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in our bosoms. (1)

Abraham Lincoln, 1858, Edwardsville, Illinois.

Lincoln’s question and his response no doubt still resounds in the ears of all Americans as they move head long in to the 21st century. Today, what constitutes the bulwark of American liberty and independence is not reflected in what Lincoln outlined as reliance based on a love of liberty but rather reliance rests in the capacity of a nation to engage its youth. As Lincoln, at a time of tremendous upheaval in American history reengaged the spirit of its people and reenergized its youth, today concerned academics are attempting to meet the challenge of the new upheaval confronting America’s reliance; The disengagement of America’s youth. Clearly, the path to engagement will be complex and lengthy and in part will stem from the importance that the nation places on education. A current area of concern focuses on High School education and the final two years of Senior Schooling. Dr Hans A. Andrews in his book, The Dual- Credit Phenomenon (2) attempts to lift the veil that surrounds the uneasiness of dealing with two complex and vexing questions, which are associated with youth disengagement – Are the last two years of High School worthwhile? And if they are not, What can be done to ameliorate the situation?

Andrews’ work is very detailed, comprehensive and outlines a response to -
Why should a high school senior have to spend his or her last year in high school blowing off the senior year? (3) He sites Botstein, McCarthy and Conley who highlighted that the majority of college bound students, found that the last year of high school was a waste of time. In Andrews’ opinion the,

. . . state of affairs has dramatically changed for high school students during the last years of the 20th Century and leading in to the 21st Century. Enlightened secondary school administrators, community college leaders, and some innovative university people have developed a new and challenging program entitled dual-credit or concurrent enrolments . . . (4)

Andrews emphasizes that some confusion exists with respect to a definition of dual-credit or concurrent enrolment as many people interchange the words. However, dual-credit is where a secondary school student enrolls in a college class so that the student receives a college credit and credit towards their secondary school requirements for graduation.

The Dual- Credit Phenomenon deals with fairly concise and tangible issues that are pertinent to engaging high school youth and expresses sound, logical solutions. For example, Time-to-Degree where Andrews argued,’ One of the prevailing concerns at the beginning of the 21st Century has been the length of time it takes students to arrive at a baccalaureate degree.’(5) According to Andrews ‘. . . many full-time college students take between 4.5 to 5.5 years to complete their degrees.’ (6) In Illinois, for example, ‘. . . the Affordability Study Committee pushed for options . . . in the secondary schools. . .’ (7) that looked at dual-accreditation programs for students who were academically ready; thereby reducing their time-to-degree. Consequently, when the process was applied, in 2001, a student from a Southeastern Illinois town graduated with both a High School Diploma and a College Degree. (8)

While Andrews’ dual-accreditation approach does attempt to address some of the challenges facing American Youth today, it only concentrates on the upper end of the bell curve, those students who are academically ready. As Andrews outlined, ‘Acceleration is a well-researched, desirable option that improves achievement for gifted students.’ (9) The challenge today for universities and high schools in America is to build on processes, like dual-accreditation, so that (as highlighted by Michael Cohen, President of Achieve Inc.) ‘ . . . the 40 to 50 percent of recent high school graduates (who) reported experiencing significant gaps in the skills they need for success in college . . . ‘ can also become engaged. (10) Clearly, Cohen’s comments suggest that 60 per cent of college bound students have the necessary skill acquisitions, whilst the other 40 per cent are experiencing significant skill retardation. Therefore, the concern expressed in this view is that 40 per cent of college bound students lack the necessary skills to succeed at college, and that is without doubt a major issue. Whilst dual-credit does address some of the concerns associated with youth disengagement clearly though, it fails to deal with addressing Cohen’s concerns. Yet in reality, this is only the tip of the ice-berg because apart from the 40 to 50 percent highlighted by Cohen there are millions more who are not just experiencing significant gaps at college level but also at high school, middle school and junior school. There appears to be an endemic problem that has permeated the entire education process, K-16, and that problem stems in part to the way in which education has implemented technology. It is of paramount importance that processes are put in place to monitor and facilitate the learning of all students so that the issues, like those highlighted by Cohen that are linked to youth disengagement, can be addressed. There is no doubt in the author’s mind that genesis to this disengagement lies, as expressed by Jeremy Bell, a philosophy professor and Academic Senate president at the college of San Mateo, in a teaching model that is 40 years old (11) and the organizational model that sustains it.

To reengage our students we need to finds ways in which education can reflect a model of teaching that exhibits 21st Century thinking and not just simply 21st Century technology. Laura Pompano’s article, The Incredibles, published in the January 7th, 2007, edition, of The Sunday New York Times, exemplifies the quintessential post – modern educational teaching model and its organizational structure and therefore highlights, the problem facing society – An inability to move beyond the constraints of a teaching model, which due to its organizational structure, still focuses on an untenable educator centered philosophy. For example, as outlined by Charles Murray,

There is no magic point at which a genuine college-level education becomes an option, but anything below an IQ of 110 is problematic. If you want to do well, you should have an IQ of 115 or higher. Put another way, it makes sense for only about 15% of the population, 25% if one stretches it, to get a college education. And yet more than 45% of recent high school graduates enroll in four-year colleges. Adjust that percentage to account for high-school dropouts, and more than 40% of all persons in their late teens are trying to go to a four-year college--enough people to absorb everyone down through an IQ of 104. (12)


When you start looking at GPA’s, Advanced Placement Tests, Mandatory Standardized Testing and IQ’s etc. you begin to fall under the spell of reducing human talent, as outlined by Arnold Kling (13), to a one-dimensional measurement; when instead human talent is the compilation of a number of processes that reflect standards which are expressed via a single digit outcome. For example, when Dr Peter Watt’s (14), of Andover, can only admit those students with a 6, on a 1 – 6 scale, in to his Physics 380 class he is in effect restricting the access of other adroit students, those with a score of 5. This restriction is due mainly to the constraints imposed on Watt by a organizational model of education that is unable to deal with the rapid changes that are occurring not only in the field of education but also more importantly, in the minds of his students. If Watt had the resources he would no doubt welcome those students into his program; who are quite capable of undertaking the tasks that would be set for them. However, due to the restrictions placed upon Watt, via a model which is still very much subjugated by human intervention, for example, student/teacher ratios, limitations are placed on his course.

Those same limitations restrict other capable students who could benefit from the experience but are unable too due to the lack of seating space, teaching contact and correction times, which are all constraints that shackle the current model of organization within education. Unfortunately, this can culminate in relegating not only low achieving but also high achieving students. Yes, you did get a score of 5 but unfortunately that’s not good enough, even though you could do the work. What talent is being lost here and sadly, who are the students being disengaged? While Pompano’s article reflected the great leap forward that has been attributed to dual-accreditation it did so at the risk of delivering an educational quagmire. A quagmire that is the result of the inabilities of an antiquated organizational model to deal with the needs and wants of a rapidly emerging discontented youth who, due to the influences of an ever expanding technological base, are seeking more and more from society as society seeks more and more from them.

It’s not about making round pegs fit square holes. It’s about making sure that there are enough round holes for all the round pegs. This analogy also includes all the other shapes, square, triangular pegs etc. that comprise society. Addressing this situation is the educational quagmire and consequently, the challenge facing educationalist in the 21st Century. What is taught? Where it is taught? How it is taught? And more importantly How well it is taught? These are all seminal factors in the education debate. However, believing that this can be facilitated within the confines of the present organizational model (let alone teaching model) of education no doubt many individuals, academic or not, would question. All organizations are developed around processes that reflect standards and those standards highlight outcomes. Unfortunately for the current model (and the processes that it espouses) both its standards and outcomes are well below par. Clearly, if the current organizational model for education, like other models, existed in a business market environment it would no doubt be influenced by market forces and therefore, the dead wood, in purely economic terms, would not be allowed to keep its doors open. As cited by Kling (15),
The best sign of a vibrant education sector would be more institutional failure. With sufficient competition and innovation, we would see colleges and universities fold or merge at the same rate as ordinary businesses. We would see schools shut down because parents send their children elsewhere. We would see large layoffs in some school systems, with hiring taking place among successful start-ups.
Retrenching staff and closing down a business is one thing, shutting down schools is another. Yet without doubt, there would be a large cross section of American society agreeing with Kling in questioning, Why underperforming schools should be allowed to operate? For example, one of the comments that followed Elizabeth Redden’s article (16), ‘Given the absolute failure of public education . . . ‘. Clearly, very strong and damning words of the public education system and whilst only reflecting the opinion of one individual the adage – Where there is smoke there is fire, must surely apply? However, one must be careful not to lay the blame for failure based solely on outcomes because who is responsible for the failure? – The administration of the school, parents, students or teachers or maybe constraints that are beyond the control of all four – government policy. Consequently, what processes are there in place within the organization to give a transcendental view of the standards that are reflected, for example, in the school’s literacy outcomes? One could have good parents, good educators, good students but an incompetent administration and therefore, that process could negatively impact on the standards and therefore the outcomes. Yet, there is light at the end of the tunnel, and that light exists in the form of educators, via the way in which they teach.

Candance DeRussy, a trustee of the State University of New York, also touched on this point when she articulated ways in which to bypass the current establishment. DeRussy’s main focus was a need to induce excellence of teaching as one of the main outcomes of bypassing the establishment. (17) Therefore, DeRussy’s words also call for change, and that change needs to be reflected in excellence of teaching. Whilst, there are a number of factors that contribute to the processes within the organizational model of education the cogent link that is established (at the coal face) via the educator and their students is undoubtedly the most important. The development of that interaction can ultimately be the genesis in creating the vehicle by which other processes, that could determine all of the standards within the organization, exist. Hence, the driving force behind any educational organization should be the processes at the bottom and not the top of the educational hierarchy – those dealing with the students. In this way the standards and outcomes of individual students can ultimately be the means by which educational organizations at all levels are judged. However, those standards must reflect the individual achievements of students, across the entire curriculum, and on a daily basis. It is this type of teaching model that reflects excellence of teaching, because it undertakes to deal with the whole gamut of educational processes (communication, knowledge, synthesis and analysis etc.) and to give those processes individual meaning.

By educational organizations focusing their attention on the excellence of teaching approach they will not fall into the same trap of the GPA or the Advance Placement Test, where the outcome/s that are derived are simply the number of students who receive, for example, a score of 6, on a 1 – 6 scale. Instead organizations will focus their attention on outcomes; that were the product of any number of standards that may or may not have been attained to facilitate those desired outcomes. The linking of those outcomes to the educator, and then using the data obtained from individual students’ processes, will see a change in the way in which policy is developed within educational organizations. A policy derived from solutions based on information gleaned from individual students. In this way policy will fit the needs and wants of those whom it is supposed to impact on. So how can this be achieved? If one looks to Andrews there are some answers.

First, Andrews observed that in 1986 under dual-credit, when the educational establishment, in Minnesota, tried to gut the program, ‘. . . student after student showed up at the capital saying, “This transformed my life; I was bored; I didn’t care about school; I wasn’t even going to go to college, and this just made me come alive.” (18) Clearly, the establishment of the dual-credit process follows the format highlighted by the excellence in teaching model. The policy that drove this development must have occurred at the coal-face because as Andrews stated, student after student, and not educator after educator or administrator after administrator, showed up at capital hill. Second, dual-credit was based on individual student achievement. This was reflected in the types of students who undertook the courses provided via the dual-credit process; they were all gifted or ready for college. Hence, like excellence in teaching the dual-credit approach was able to formulate a solution to a problem because it had the capacity to deal with individual student needs. By focusing their attention at the top end of the bell curve, educators were able to glean data about student processes, which were reflected in agreed standards that in turn, were articulated via outcomes through dual accreditation. Finally, the dual-credit process gives a fairly unambiguous message; if one is able to group students, and thereby obtain a very clear picture of their outcomes, policy changes can occur that do fit the needs and wants of those who it should impact upon. Unfortunately, Andrews’ dual-credit only applies to the gifted or mature students, what happens to the others? In attempting to address this question one must be careful not to fall into the trap of focusing on - What should be taught in the 21st Century? But rather the focus of the question needs to be directed to - How should educators teach in the 21st Century? Clearly, one cannot focus on content without first, developing a way in which to teach it.

As educators, if we look back on our teaching careers and the developments that have transpired within education very few would say that technology has not played some part in the process of teaching and therefore, the current model. However, as Bell outlined the model of teaching that is being employed by educators is 40 years old, if not older. Surely such a situation is a paradox? How can you teach in the past but live in the future? How can a teaching model that was used before the inclusion of technology into the classroom be applicable now? No doubt, many educators, and rightly so, will highlight the great educational advances that have taken place with the introduction of on-line courses, Webct, Interactive-whiteboard, Internet and the plethora of other tools that have been developed. However, when one explores the developments of technology, within the classroom, many will find that its application has been lacking, from a 21st Century teaching perspective. Why?

The work of Conlon and Simpson, for example, reflected a view by the authors that there are a number of obstacles impacting on the use of ICT's within schools. Conlon and Simpson highlighted that heavy demands made on teachers, infrastructure deficiencies and the lack of ICT skills all played a seminal role in the implementation of ICT use within the curriculum framework. They further expanded on this by citing Cuban's work, in California, where Cuban expressed the opinion that teachers themselves are traditionally slow to change and that if policy reforms, for example ICT, are not imbibed by teachers the culminating result would be that there will only be a superficial effect.

Nearly all of the technology that has been developed for use by educational organizations falls under two categories – administrative and resource orientated something that Peter Plantec (Co-founder of Virtual Personalities, Inc.) would no doubt agree with. Technology, within an educational framework, has been developed to help administrators in the running of their schools and to assist educators in the delivery of their content via applications that allow them to produce material that can be instantaneous and also accessed by their students. In this way educators become more than just givers of knowledge, as articulated by DeRussy, ‘We come face to face with the whole range of perception that mankind has attained and that is denied by our unavoidable existence. Through this experience we escape from the prison cell . . . it is like gaining a second life.’ (19) In this way the educator via technology is able to open a whole new world to their students. Consequently, as the student researches and explores, their exploration is facilitated by the educator. Hence, educators via the use of technology are in fact becoming facilitators of knowledge and not simply information givers. For example, whilst educators are capable of selecting resources for their class from the internet, that same access is also at the finger tips of their students. Consequently, roles are changing and therefore, the model of teaching; instead of the educationalist being the fountain of all knowledge they become more of a guide directing students as they learn through the research they undertake. Hence, the educator moves towards becoming a facilitator of knowledge as opposed to a fountain of knowledge.

This view was also expressed by Professor Dooley of Texas A & M University, who argued that computer technologies are changing the way in which educators interact with their students and that this interaction was changing from one of information giver to facilitator. Such a change in the old model of education will require not just simply tacit approval on the part of educators. A change of this magnitude will be promulgated by educators moving from the role of information giver to a facilitator of knowledge. However, the facilitation of knowledge can only be achieved when information can be turned in to data. That data must then allow the facilitator to interact with individual students, thereby facilitating their learning. What that means is that information, of all types, is being relayed to the educator, about the student/s, and then that information is processed into data to allow for the facilitation of an individual student’s learning. Each student’s learning would be derived from the standards and outcomes which are collectively gleaned from various skill acquisitions across the entire curriculum. Consequently, those skill acquisitions become the collective outcomes for each individual student and it is this that the new model of teaching, for the 21st Century, needs to address. This type of outcome acquisition would be undertaken through the development and application of specific standards at both the micro and macro levels of student learning; within the individual student’s classroom and within each individual student’s course. In order to achieve these types of educational outcomes educators, argued Nichol and Watson, will be required to radically change pedagogies and approaches to learning, if they are to integrate ICT in to their classrooms in a meaningful way in the 21st Century. The development of this approach, which is exemplified by dual-credit, encapsulates all of the seminal processes but on a much larger and broader scale. It is this mass involvement, of students, that will bring about change to all levels of education. So what does this mean, for education, the educator and the educated?

For education, it will mean a major shift in the way in which it is viewed by society. For educators, it will mean changing forever the pedagogies associated with the old model of the 20th Century. For the educated, it will create a world whereby structural developments can be undertaken to achieve maximum results, thereby attempting to deliver education to a society that is devoid of the stigma of one-size fits all, which as a consequence alienates a large percentage of youth. The key to change is first and fore most technology. However, a technology developed around delivering a service to society whereby the relationship created between human and computer is built around serving human needs; a view articulated by Professor Ben Shneiderman, of Maryland University, in his publication – Leonardo’s Lap Top. (20) Shneiderman believes that the development of any relationship between technology and humans must play a seminal role in enhancing its acceptance within society. Clearly, without the development of this type of relationship there will always be reluctance, on the part of the educator, to accept technology. Consequently, technology needs to be developed, as outlined by Shneiderman, which must support relationships and activities that enrich the users experience and that are in harmony with them. (21)

However, whilst Shneiderman’s view reflects the paramount importance of the human element the development of any technology, that is implemented with a penchant to either replace educators or to be used as a stand alone tool created by a manufacture to function as a simple learning tool will not be well received by educators. Any technology that is developed and does not augment the capacity of the educators to facilitate the learning of students will not truly reflect a 21st Century model of teaching. As Shneiderman advocated, ‘. . . developers should design information and communication technologies that enable users to achieve their goals rapidly and gracefully in an atmosphere of trust and responsibility.’(22) The creation of this type of philosophy, within education, will no doubt change forever the way in which society perceives it. How can this development be introduced to the educator in a sustainable way?

The establishment of a technology base for education, reflecting only the developments of non-educational programmers will be counterproductive for education. Technology must be viewed by educators as supporting meaningful accomplishments. That is, the implementation of that technology is able to change the way in which educators teach so that its outcomes are reflected across the whole gamut of education in a positive and supportive way. The only avenue that should be viewed here would be the development of technology based Think Tanks, within universities, that are linked via their education courses to technology and pedagogy. There needs to be a direct link between the Faculty of Education's course assessment, course content and the undergraduate. In this way the development of technology will truly reflect the achievements associated with the implementation and application of those developments thereby, ensuring that human needs will guide the design for any future undertakings. By establishing links with schools to undertake the implementation of Faculty of Education course material, directly through the application of technology, the development of any future undertakings are guaranteed to meet with success.

Undergraduates through their application of technology will see the benefits of its implementation. Educators, through their involvement with the undergraduate and university, will also see the benefits of technology. Whilst the educated (the student) and their family will benefit from the way in which technology will have a direct and positive impact on their lives. Technology will not become a burden but rather a tool, whereby all those engaged in its use will benefit and share in the overall success of its application. In this way the implementation of technology, within the education system will assist in creating for society a greater awareness of the attributes of technology and therefore, the view that it can indeed serve human needs. What has been highlighted here is not new, for example, Dr David Shupe, for eLumen Collaboration, and Dr Margaret Honey, Co Director of the Centre for Children’s Technology have all developed aspects of this process. (23) The key is to link these processes together so that the development of the technology becomes symbiotic, via the relationships that are established between university, school and society. The main focus of that relationship will be reflected in a behavioral/interactive philosophy encouraging Self Managed Learning.

For there to be a shared relationship between technology and humans one of the key elements will be the ability for those interacting with technology to be self managed learners. Clearly, if the old education model was about a fountain of knowledge and if the new focus is moving towards the facilitation of knowledge then logically if the educator is required to change then so will the educated. The emphasis on the educated will be through the development of a behavioral/interactive philosophy encouraging Self Managed Learning. Within the Self Managed Learning philosophy students will be encouraged to focus on learning, via technology, so that as they progress through the learning process there is less teacher facilitation for those students who do not need it, and more teacher facilitation for those that do. In this way students would be encouraged to develop Self Managed Learning skills as part of their skill acquisition as they move from K – 5 initially and then onwards from K – 16. Self Managed Learning will therefore become the primary focus of pedagogy for educators in that, it would be desirable for all students, at all levels of education, to be taught to self manage their own learning, via teacher facilitation. In this way technology, and its ability to interact with students on an individual level, could be implemented. The more students are able to self manage their learning the greater the impact of education on their lives and that of society. Self Managed Learning is about, as viewed by Professor Roger Hiemstra, helping learners of any age develop self-directed or self-management skills, so that as educators we are making sure that all of the round pegs get an equal opportunity to access all of the round holes and that the old model of education, that has placed constraints on students, becomes redundant. (24)

Dr Andrews’ book has encouraged the development of further academic discourse on not simply dual-accreditation but more importantly the underlying principles and process surrounding it. Dual-credit has had success with gifted students. Clearly, high schools, colleges and universities can negotiate their way around the bureaucratic nightmare. When it is necessary different levels of the educational hierarchy can have common goals. However, the question remains, What happens to the other 75 percent of American Youth who struggle and will continue to struggle under the current teaching and organizational models, which are well past their prime? The author believes that the answer lies in our ability to think of ways in which technology can be used, by educators, to make sure that all the holes are filled.






















References

Life Magazine, 1991, February Edition - Lincoln ‘The President who gave meaning, honor and purpose to the Civil War speaks to us still.’
Dr Hans A Andrews Dual Credit Phenomenon! Challenging Secondary School Students Across 50 States, 2001, New Forums Press, U.S.A.
Andrews, A., 2001, 2001, Dual Credit Phenomenon! Challenging Secondary School Students Across 50 States, p.1., New Forums Press, U.S.A.
ibid, p.2.
ibid, p.7.
ibid, p.8.
ibid, p.8.
ibid, p.73.
ibid, p.1.
Redden, E., 2007, Higher Ed and the High Schools, January, 23rd. http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/23/summit (Michael Cohen is President of Achieve, Inc., a non – profit organization that focuses on helping states raise their standards.)
Jaschik, S., 2007, A Curricular Debate: Classic or Retro? January, 22nd.
http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/22/aacu
Murray, C., Opinion Journal, The Wall Street Journal, Editorial Page, January, 17th, 2007.
Kling, A., For Whom the Bell Curves, America’s Educational Dilemma, TSC Daily, 22nd January, 2007.
Pappano, L., The Incredibles, The Sunday New York Times, January 7th , 2007.(Dr Peter Watt’s Physics 580 class was mentioned within the context of the article, and the emphasis placed on only very high achieving students having access to the course. He has to turn away applicants for his post – A.P. course . . . (because he is) limited to 16 (students).)
Kling, A., For Whom the Bell Curves, America’s Educational Dilemma, TSC Daily, 22nd January, 2007.
Redden, E., 2007, Higher Ed and the High Schools, January, 23rd. http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/23/summit (At the end of the article readers were able to comment on the content. This response was one of those comments – C. Bigsby, at 9.55 am EST, January 23, 2007.
Jaschik, S., 2007, A Curricular Debate: Classic or Retro? January, 22nd.
http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/22/aacu (Candance DeRussy, was a
trustee of the State University of New York, at the time of making her comments.
DeRussy highlighted that bypassing the current establishment (such as
competitive, performance – based on models for funding and delivering . . .
education) will be needed to induce excellence in teaching and research.)
Andrews, A., 2001, 2001, Dual Credit Phenomenon! Challenging Secondary School Students Across 50 States, p.23, New Forums Press, U.S.A.
Jaschik, S., 2007, A Curricular Debate: Classic or Retro? January, 22nd.
http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/22/aacu
Shneiderman, B., http://www.mitpress.edu/main/feature/leonardoslaptop/sample, 2006, Chapter 5.
ibid. Chapter 5.
ibid. Chapter 5.
See eLumen Collaboration and Centre for Children’s Technology Web sites, for more detailed information.
Professor Roger Heimstra is an authority on Adult Education in America and has written a number of articles and books on topics addressing Self Managed Learning. His comments were reflected in correspondence with the author on the 25th of August, 2006. An extract of that correspondence is highlighted below;
I also support your notions about the importance of helping learners of any age develop self-directed or self-management skills. The notion of teacher as facilitator and the need to develop lifelong learning skills are also reflected in several of my publications.





Bibliography

Conlon, T., and Simpson, M. (2003) Silicon Valley versus Silicon Glen: The impact of computers upon teaching and learning: A Comparative study. British Journal of Education Technology, 34 (2).
Dooley, K., (1999) Towards a Holistic Model for the Diffusion of Educational Technologies: An Integrated Review of Educational Innovation Studies. Educational Technology & Society, 2 (4).
Nichol, J., and Watson, K., (2003) Rhetoric and Reality – the past and future of ICT in Education. British Journal of Education Technology, 34 (2).