SUBJECT: Assignment #4, Summary Paper #4 Course: MCTE670-Learning Theory & Computer Applications Textbook: School Reform in the Information Age Howard D. Mehlinger (1995) Professor: Dr. Steve Terrell Student: Leanne C. Boyd Usercode: boydl ( boydl@scis.acast.nova.edu ) Due date: December 12, 1997 Response to “School Reform” -- Can You Believe This Guy? Please: Protect Religion from the State! Howard D. Mehlinger begins his book, “School Reform,” with a Biblical reference: “Where there is no vision, the people perish.” Let me say from the onset that I have strongly-held religious beliefs, and I have used this particular scripture many times in working with my own children. It embodies the concept that a God-given attribute is often ignored in working with our daily problems, and that imagination, or vision, is often the key to understanding the finer points of a problem. In this day of keeping “State” separate from “Religion,” I have often been known to bristle at what has been shoved at the American public, but not for the same reasons that many people have. Our founding fathers wrote this precept into our documents to protect our religious choices *from the State,* and not the other way around, as is so often put forth. I therefore was surprised at my reaction to the beginning of the book, and how many pages into the book it took for me to start responding to Mehlinger’s information! This book ended up NOT having the impact of the previous three on our list. After a great deal of thought, I have concluded that MY reason for this was that Mehlinger is the only one of the four authors that comes directly from the “Education” field, rather than a corner of the “New Media” and its professional aspects. Papert and Perelman, for instance, work closely in technology, and approach these issues from a very different stance than Mehlinger. Phillips and Soltis were primarily bearers of history, so the tone of the book was different to start with. Because I approach this MCTE course of study from the aspect of technology (I am a content creator), rather than from the world of education (I am not a teacher), perhaps my viewpoint is already different from many of my peers’. The strongest “useful knowledge” that has come forth in this study, has been that economy and technology are shaping not just education...but LEARNING. Papert and Perelman have a very strong, personal knowledge of what is going on. Mehlinger seems to NOT have any level of personal experience with the technologies, but most importantly, he has had no “close encounters of any-numbered kind” with the ECONOMIC reasons behind this global technical upheaval. On Being the Apologist: Read Between the Lines Repeatedly, I kept feeling that Mehlinger approaches this from the “Academician’s” point of view. So much of his information -- and, it IS marvelous information!! -- seems to be delivered from “The Teacher’s” way of looking at things!! This, then, was the main thing that I had to get around, in reading this book. I found that if I could take his subject BACK INTO THE REALM OF TECHNOLOGY, then it once again carried the impact of the other books we’ve reviewed. I think that the essential point that is missing in Mehlinger’s book is that of the URGENCY that the world is dealing with. The changes needed are preponderant, the time is short, and there seem to be few people -- and, fewer still in “the Academy” -- who truly understand what is coming. Papert and Perelman presented not only the information, but also expedient ways of dealing with the issues. Mehlinger, on the other hand, presented similar or even identical issues, but in a very understated manner, without the POWER needed to make the reader understand the sheer timeliness of the issues or the demand for action. It seemed that he borrowed most of his ideas, which is why he ended up having no force or power behind his statements. Second-hand is just that: second-hand. For me, this book was kind of wimpy. Many times, Mehlinger gave examples and then proceeded to pinpoint the shortcomings of traditional education in dealing with issues. After explaining things, he then backed off and gave reasons why “Education” is doing what it is doing. Many times, this came off as him just taking the stance of the “Apologist.” Even though he might have been saying the same thing as the other authors, he presented it in such a form that it reminded me of the “double-talk” so prevalent in presentations by “School.” Across the nation and spanning the years, you had to “read between the lines” to get to the sum and substance. Reading on, I determined to find the powerful messages that really ARE behind Mehlinger’s statements, as I suspected that his sources were more powerful than himself! Researching key words online, I was able to find some of the organizations about which he spoke. I did find out more about what is being done...MUCH more. In this regard, Mehlinger, being the Academician and researcher, actually gave us many choices to research, because he names for many entities involved in “School Reform” and new thoughts on learning. Therefore, it is the purpose of my response to take a few of these and let the reader know what was of essence to me, within Mehlinger’s book. It will probably be evident that these are the same topics -- approached through meanings for Economy or Technology -- emphasized by Papert, Perelman, and many others I “met” while researching issues in the previous books. Useful Knowledge: Why Is Schooling So Boring? Mehlinger points out, beginning on page 14, the differences between *useful* knowledge, and that which is NOT useful as it has no other purpose for being taught than it is a TRADITION. Mehlinger does make a very astute observation here, concerning the proposal of teaching “Core Knowledge.” Pointing out that some subjects (Shakespeare, Roman Empire, etc.) are only CORE to some academicians because they mirror what they learned in University -- does NOT make it CORE to everyone, or even for “the many!” What this issue actually boils down to is: How applicable to real life is this subject? What bothered me about Mehlinger’s report in Chapter One, is how long it took him to get to the central point of it all! How many of us remember our academic days, filled with a teacher taking the circuitous route to the final point? After giving us the example of the SCANS Report (p. 15), it took until page 21 for him to ABSOLUTELY state that “Information Age technology is the single greatest factor affecting the ways we live: it cannot help but alter the way we conduct schooling.” My initial reaction to this statement was that it is so outdated! First, we no longer call it the Information Age, as that is already finished. It is now the AGE OF KNOWLEDGE. He is woefully behind, even in his comprehension of WHAT IS BEING DELIVERED. To top off my feelings about his mode of presentation, I had to almost laugh at the lifeless way this was stated! It does not carry the power of similar warnings by Papert or Perelman. They tried to make us see the really dire emergencies that we face. Mehlinger, bound in roots of a buffered life lived in the Academy, tells us that schooling cannot help being “altered” by technology. I say, islands cannot help being altered by a hurricane! You “alter” the way a dress is made. You “alter” a recipe for pancakes. You choose an “alternate” route to work. Having a glass of wine might “alter” your mood over dinner. The word “alter” just does not embody the authority that is needed! Stated so very nicely, so primly, makes it seem like Mehlinger, in the role of teacher -- teeth- grittingly patient and wanting to stay on the parents’ good side -- puts Johnny’s assessment into wording that is palatable! I think we are faced with immediate, hard-hard- HARD decisions. Necessary actions are called for NOW -- and not just when someone thinks they are ready to hear it. Mehlinger loses many readers, I would think, because of his mild-mannered, Clark Kent presentation, when it is Superman or some other Super Hero that we need! “One reason schooling is boring for so many students is that they see little value in what they are asked to learn,” is what Mehlinger states on page 14. Yet, his watered-down, lukewarm wording led me to become quickly bored with his issues. We are not looking to “alter” education. We are faced with the tremendous challenges of ripping out the seams, throwing away the cookbook, tearing up all roads to work, trading the bottle of wine for a small vial of nitroglycerin!!! This is not easy, what we are up against -- and Mehlinger’s diluted version didn’t present the necessary mind-set. It was almost as if he was trying to make the whole thing more flavorsome and tasty, by mildly saying, “X-Y-Z, *if you don’t mind...”* Those involved in REAL REFORM are a bit more thick-skinned toward negative feedback. Of Timidity and a Lukewarm Approach It’s not much of a stand, in my estimation: the meek, business-suited man, timidly holding up the latest report of successful data on the SCANS Report, saying “Forty percent of American schools MIGHT be computer literate (sort of) shortly after 2000.” And the thundering herd of rhinoceros-like, digitally-armored, technology-driven companies pounds him into the dust...and his little dusty data book, too. One of the mighty lessons of the new technology, the new media, is one of PRESENTATION. Mehlinger even recognizes this fact. “There are ways to make the academic knowledge interesting and vital to youth...” (p. 15) is his statement. I feel this whole book might have been a more successful effort, had he simply followed his own advice. In our previous readings, the thought was put forth that perhaps teaching within the parameters of the new technology should NOT be left in the hands of “School,” but rather in the hands of the technology that is producing the need for change. I say there has to be a handshaking. There is definitely a cause for a “place of learning,” -- SCHOOL, for lack of a better word. However, comprehension of the “dirty realities” is not yet strong in the academic world! Mehlinger’s approach, like that of most of “School” is not only under-experienced, but lukewarm and even fearful -- as many cannot peek beyond their fear of the competitiveness of the new learning arena -- and the possible loss of their job. It is my opinion that, for a person interested in getting an accurate view of the situation, and wanting really good advice as to where to start, probably Mehlinger’s book is NOT the place to begin. Many, such as myself, will become apathetic toward him, because of the serious issues abounding today in education. How serious is serious? “‘Jobs will vanish as business makes the transition to a new digital model -- but in the long run, the *New Order of Things* will create even more employment positions,’ Clinton administration Net czar Ira Magaziner told a global meeting on the development of electronic commerce, in Turku, Finland. (Reuters & Wired, Inc., 1997). He was speaking of the Internet and its undeniably potent force in today’s world. Magaziner was repeating a stand that he has defended in the White House -- that governments need to permit *markets* to tear down the barriers to Internet commerce. Employment will very often be thrown into upheaval, because the Information Society causes the same kind of turmoil as the Industrial Revolution did. Our earliest readings, including those of John Dewey that so impressed me, showed us that our current education platform rose out of the needs of the Industrial Society. Wisely, Magaziner states that ‘[t]raining and education will be needed for the transition -- this is crucially important...Millions of jobs will be lost, but millions more will be created,’” (Reuters & Wired, Inc., 1997). What was NOT expressly stated was the method and manner of training and education that is needed. After all, he was speaking to a group already largely aware of the demands of our current global status. Millions of jobs -- but how many American children are being outfitted to meet those demands? Top-Down Reform, But Missing the Point Mehlinger speaks of “making education more like business.” Ray Marshall, former Secretary of Labor under Jimmy Carter, was co-chair of the Commission on the Skills of the American Work Force. The term, “human-resource capitalism,” was coined, in which deficiencies in the skills of the workforce in America are defined as the single greatest problem to be overcome. The success of business and wealth lies in having access to highly skilled workers. Underlying all of this was the suggestion that, if those skilled workers cannot be found within the ranks of educated Americans, then they will be found in other nations -- people who also will be willing to work for lower wages. (p. 41). Mehlinger states, “American educators may dislike having business interests and the economy serve as the driving force for school reform, but there is no doubt that top-down reforms are being advanced on the basis of what will be good for the economy as a whole.” (p. 41). Finding this statement hidden within much other verbalization that was much more watered down, I found myself having to read this statement several times in order to see its impact. Mehlinger undoubtedly understands what is going on, but it is much harder to ferret out the bits of info, than in our previous readings. In the overall sense of this chapter, Mehlinger seems to be in accordance with much of the Top-Down movement. But, in many ways I feel he is missing the whole point! For instance, his final assessment for Top-Down is this: “Because the president, the governors, business leaders, national foundations, and some educational reformers understand what is needed more than teachers, administrators, and local school boards, it is the responsibility of government and business leaders to decide what school reforms are needed and how reform will be accomplished.” NO! He has missed the point, almost altogether! He states on page 43 that, for the most part, the ideas of this movement are good ones and that they could contribute to better school practices. I agree that most of what is proposed could be very good. However, there is one major flaw in his assessment that would make Top-Down Reform a very BAD thing (if carried out according to Mehlinger’s interpretation). First of all, his statement seems to be an imperious declaration made by an educator who is accustomed to uttering an edict and then seeing it accomplished by sub- hierarchical underlings. He seems to think he has enough understanding of new media and new economies to somehow be chosen to be among the “elite” of governmental or business leaders who will make those reform choices! He simply is attaching an old dogma to a new critical center of power! By molding the new decision-makers along the old standby regulatory board, the essential status of education or learning methods are bound to stay the same! Good old Status Quo! It is probably true that many in our present government have a better understanding of what is happening than many in Education, although that cannot be a blanket statement. Magaziner, for all the negative hype he has received (mostly from those who fear for their jobs, or fear the new computerized work arena), apparently has an excellent understanding of what is needed (or his speech- writers do). In the Finland meeting, sponsored by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Magaziner cited five principles for successful electronic commerce. Since I feel we’ve established that what is good for commerce is good for “education,” then this list will also apply to those concerned with Reform in Education: * “The private sector must lead. Government is important, but it is the nature of the digital economy that if government seeks too much control or leadership, development will slow down. * “The market must drive events, not regulation. The Internet, unlike old government-managed telecommunications regimes, is based on tough competition. A whole range of different company sectors must build the infrastructure. * “Any action taken by government must be specific, precise, and transparent. Government must give the market a chance to work out problems first. * “Respect the nature of the new technology. Attempts to control from the center will be impossible. * “Globalization. This trend has been developing for almost 50 years, and will be taken to a new level by the Internet.” (Reuters & Wired, Inc., 1997). In other words, government must NOT be the central agency in developing any kind of reform in education. Instead, government must step aside and let the global markets create the identity of the economic structure. From within this new development, businesses will learn to solve their own problems. Unlike the Industrial Age’s impact on America, the Knowledge Age’s impact will be on all of humanity (not just U.S. citizens). Any one government, of course, cannot be the central provider of advice, regulation, or anything else. It is not “A” government we are talking about now -- it is many government(s)...PLURAL! It is my opinion that Mehlinger, like so many who want to jump on the Reform bandwagon, leaves out essential components when talking over otherwise very “sane” proposals for change. In this particular case of Top-Down, his level of comfort seems to reside in keeping the hierarchy in a form he can relate to. This doesn’t bear much resemblance to the current reality of changes needed, and will become only more bizarre as time goes by. In our American world, we too often have come to rely on answers from Government. It is easy to see how this “mind-think” might be difficult to give up, even for, or maybe ESPECIALLY FOR someone as highly educated and highly empowered as Mehlinger. I see reform coming from a surprising angle. I also, after much research and study, see that I am not alone in my thinking. In fact, the entrepreneurial spirit, the willingness to accept RISK, a deep-seated capacity for seeking adventure, is part of our American heritage. There are many of us out here who have always been, and remain, renegades. If closely studied, the builders and supporters of the “Internet Age” are also, in great numbers, those very same renegades! Our present educational system was built with a pioneer spirit to meet demands of a changing society. In that same way, our new methods for learning and their delivery systems will be made along those same lines. Government was not the creative force for the Industrial Age, and it won’t be the impetus for the Knowledge Age. The recent legislative moves to try and control the Internet, AND THE LACK OF SUCCESS THEREOF, are a positive proof that government will not be the central agency. Business and economic urgency will produce those leaders, from local, very specific sources. What has not been mentioned, not by Magaziner and certainly not by Mehlinger, is that, in the “evolutionary” pattern-maker that develops during crisis, the natural order of things will come about through the agency who is most capable. Actually, this probably will be as simple as a “re-think” on terminology. Leaders in commerce will become the teachers. Simple words, understood by all. The difference won’t be in a title, but in types and levels of experience, training and previous education. The new start will develop within the ranks of business. This concept is already alive and well in its own medium of delivery...the Internet. Better Late Than Never: Check Out Seven Lessons on School Change Out of sheer frustration with Mehlinger’s manner of presenting these issues, and finding myself tired of trying to figure out if he was FOR or against something, I sooner or later meandered to the end of the book. I just don’t feel that his words carry the impact that they NEED to. He examines many fine details, but doesn’t get down to the major point of what we are dealing with, which is URGENCY. He seems to have a ready retinue of “excuses why” and “reasons for,” but kind of just wanders into a final declaration, rather than really making a stand. Therefore, I was initially pleased to begin reading his “Seven Lessons From Research on School Change,” on page 149. This chapter, at least, began to line up with a few things that I know to be true, instead of things that may have been true a while back...which he is just now getting around to reporting! In fact, this may be the essence of what bothers me about this book -- Mehlinger seems to be painfully behind the times. I admit that books on school reform probably have much outdated information in them by the time they reach press, but this book seems to be full of gross inadequacies. This chapter, however, began (15 pages before the book’s end!!) to deal with realities such as change being a journey and not a blueprint, where plans for *anyone,* not just in education, must be flexible and not set in stone. Great start! Wait just one minute, though, and Mr. M. puts ‘er in reverse and backs right up and over his good start! The portion that claims that “problems are our friends,” loses the zeal! Wimpy! What is this, the Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood slogan for school reform? Mehlinger sounds as if someone told him to say this (probably Mr. Rogers)! His words are very, very shallow. They carry no conviction. The reader knows right away that he’s never experienced a problem such as the technical warfare we face, closely enough to call it a friend! His position in education has buffered him from that intimate of a situation. I’ve long known that experience is the best teacher, and, in my personal path, mistakes have most commonly been the best teachers of all. Mehlinger doesn’t sound convinced, nor does he sound convincing! I also don’t see him -- as Papert and Perelman most definitely did -- coming up with any solutions! Most of the solutions he has described are second-hand (or perhaps have been passed through more hands than just two!). He simply is repeating what someone else has said. What is missing is revealing the necessity to deal -- most likely at VERY LOCAL LEVELS -- with the PROBLEMS at hand. It is not enough to just talk about it. There has to be an ACTION VERB in there, somewhere!! I’m Madder Than Hell -- ARE YOU?? There are people who are coming up with active ways of dealing head-on with these inefficiencies in our system. It never ceases to astound me, the “round-robin effect” that is possible within the boundaries (there ARE none!) of the Internet! As I sit in Colorado, studying for coursework from a university that I’ve pledged some allegiance to -- in the state of Florida -- I have run into a like-minded “peer” and some truths that I, too, hold to be true. Richard K. Allman, Chair of the Industrial Technology Department, PTEC, of Clearwater, Florida, states: “A great deal of time, effort and money have been spent on attempts to reform Florida’s and other states education systems, most notably America 2000 and Florida's version, Blueprint 2000 and the recent Sunshine State Standards legislation. In my humble opinion, none of the reform measures have met with much success so far.” (Allman, 1997). More interestingly, what is the title of this work found online? It is called, “Are You Mad as Hell and Not Going to Take IT Any More? (A Serious Overview with Tongue in Cheek).” It is an overview of education reform issues in K-12 in Florida. Perhaps more than anything that Mehlinger EVER thought of, Mr. Allman adeptly expresses not just the problems, but the shortcomings of legislative interpretations and the inability of schools to enact poorly thought-out mandates, let alone institute things that DO work. He points out that HE is mad as hell, with the underlying suggestion that most people are equally angry. Well, why can’t anything “get done?” Since some of Allman’s suggestions are things like: 1) developing an administrative staffing model that eliminates redundant or under-utilized personnel; 2) removing excess or redundant paperwork; 3) developing an incentive pay plan that will attract highly qualified new teachers that have industry or business work experience in fields they are hired to teach; OR 4) starting to require that K-12 administrators have significant private sector business or industry management experience... (Allman, 1997). ...It’s no wonder it butts heads with many in traditional education positions! ...GEE! It sounds to me like this would dispose of some dead wood in our districts that are creating not just the stumbling blocks to the needed reforms, but also are eating up salary dollars that could be going to purchase technology and/or qualified personnel. ...Double-GEE! This very well could mean the demise of even Mr. Mehlinger’s administrative position, or a thousand others like it. Integrating School With Work: Get Real! An obstacle with the American education system is that it is given in a primarily one-subject-per-period class schedule. Our present system is continuously moving students, mentally and bodily, from this subject to that subject. This kind of strategy is contrary to the urgencies of an integrated-curriculum format. It is essential that we begin to understand that LEARNING no longer covers single concepts and single subjects, but a compendium of topics and how they fit together in a global structure. Integrating academic subjects such as humanities with literature, and language arts and/or history with social studies and/or government will very much benefit our students by permitting more complex assignments to be completed in related subjects. This will give learners a much higher level of comprehension and an ability to really APPLY cross-discipline knowledge. The last couple of years of high school could also be spent in specialized, comprehensive areas of study. This very well could be done by working closely with local business and industry, by instituting internships or cooperative education partnerships in almost any field. Here in Colorado, for instance, the “School-to-Work” program of Governor Romer’s office has been very active and beneficial for instituting on-the-job training at sophisticated levels for many students. High school vocational/technical programs need to be restarted or enhanced with up-to-date classrooms, technologies and labs. This has to be integrated with pertinent, related courses of study. This is possibly the only way to prepare students for *advanced* placement in appropriate post-secondary institutions -- vocational/ technical schools, community colleges, or colleges. Use of similar programs has dramatically placed learners of other countries (Germany, for example) far ahead of American students. (Allman, 1997). Conclusion: Nova -- Marching to a Different Drummer As this was our last book for this course, I was glad that I hadn’t quite finished with my response paper when we “met” in the ECR classroom. The final topic of the class had to do with WHO the actual revolutionaries are, in this movement (Dr. Steve’s “favorite” page in the book!). I agree that Mehlinger’s question, and his response to his own query, were probably the most vital questions posed in the book -- and certainly Mehlinger’s most heartfelt response! He actually brightened up while speaking of Tom Snyder Productions and the others! We are, indeed, looking at the final gasps of education as we’ve known it. There ARE people who see the problem more clearly than others. There are those of us who are actively involved in trying to meet the needs of the coming years. There ARE those of us who are brandishing swords to fight the old dragons, willing to take the risks. We are doing it because of not only our own place in America’s future, but the strongholds our children will inhabit, as opposed to the dungeons. It was such a meaningful touch in this, our final class, to have the honor of being recognized as revolutionaries for our own cause. We, at Nova, really have “stuck our necks out” in choosing a mode of education that is closer to meeting demands of next year, or possibly even next week! We are establishing the proving-ground. It was intensely wonderful to hear the “spoken words,” and realize that we’ve made a correct choice! Perhaps Mehlinger doesn’t have a total grasp of what is happening, but getting a total overview of “who is saying what,” was necessary. This book made me realize that much of the Academy still suffers greatly from self-induced “ostrich- itis,” no matter what pretty words or politically correct definitions they put on things. It felt very good to get the sense that Nova and its team of teachers definitely march to a different drummer. After 12 weeks of study and some seemingly insurmountable problems to overcome in getting started in this long-sought degree, I felt for the first time -- *without a doubt* -- that my decision for this school was absolutely correct. Nova is a haven in which to begin rallying and making decisions. It is a fortress where we can solidify our technical wizardries. It is a sanctuary, within whose walls we can learn to compare, to plan, to reach for the future, to discover ways of teaching others to grasp new ideals. Nova is a greenhouse. We are growing solutions -- for the revolution! --- REFERENCES Allman, Richard K. (1997). Are you mad as hell and not going to take it any more? (A serious overview with tongue in cheek). In: K-12 Education Reform Issues. [Online]. Available: http://www.pinellas.com/~kentallman/ Mehlinger, Howard D. (1995). School reform in the information age. Bloomington, IN: Center for Excellence in Education, Indiana University. Reuters, & Wired, Inc. (1997). Magaziner: Net will spark job turmoil. In: Politics: Internet news from Wired News. [Online]. Available: http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/8650.html