Charlotte-Mecklenburg's principals will meet with a team from Apple on Wednesday and Thursday to launch a school year that's focused on turning each school into a "school of choice."
 |
| Kemker |
The two-day "transformation summit" is central to Superintendent Heath Morrison's vision for long-term academic success, in which principals lead faculty, families, students and community partners in creating schools with individually tailored academic programs, teaching strategies and schedules.
But every time Morrison and his staff enthuse about the Apple-led sessions, I scratch my head. Isn't Apple in the business of selling computers, digital devices and software? Wouldn't any vendor leap at the chance to lead a planning session for the nation's 17th largest school district?
In a 2011 series on "Grading the Digital School," the New York Times noted Apple's savvy at "wooing and wowing" educators.
"The demand for technology in classrooms has given rise to a slick and fast-growing sales force. Makers of computers and other gear vigorously court educators as they vie for billions of dollars in school financing. Sometimes inviting criticism of their zealous marketing, they pitch via e-mail, make cold calls, arrange luncheons and hold community meetings," reporter Matt Richtel wrote.
"But Apple in particular woos the education market with a state-of-the art sales operation that educators say is unique, and that, public-interest watchdogs say, raises some concerns. Along with more traditional methods, Apple invites educators from around the country to 'executive briefings,' which participants describe as equal parts conversation, seminar and backstage pass."
This week's session follows a trip by Morrison and four other CMS administrators to Apple headquarters in July. But Block said the exchange of visits isn't tied to a CMS purchase. "We have no idea if it's going to translate into the use of Apple products," Block said.
Posts
22 comments:
As long as Microsoft has equal opportunity to sell its products, go for it.
Oh, wait. CMS is still in the 80's when it comes to technology.
Next will be nutrition counselors from McDonalds.
Third will be family planning courtesy of the General Assembly.
I would warn folks to pay very close attention to any research cited by Educational Research Services and any conclusions drawn from it. Several years ago, ERS was the source of one of the more egregiously outrageous claims regarding class size that even CMS had seen. After the error was pointed out in an Observer editorial (see: http://seenfromtherock.blogspot.com/2010/01/battles-class-size.html) Jonathan Travers admitted that the criticism was accurate, although he said that it didn't change his conclusions. CMS continued to use the appallingly inaccurate claim in future presentations. Ann, I believe you can testify to the accuracy of this account.
Actually, here's the followup. The Observer doesn't have the original pieces up any more, but they can be found by searching the Observer archives through the public library website. http://seenfromtherock.blogspot.com/2010/01/battles-class-size-ii.html
Not "Educational Research Services" but "Educational Resource Strategies." Sorry about that.
"to launch a school year that's focused on turning each school into a "school of choice."
Ann, what does that mean? More change at each school in regards to technology? or curriculum? or schedules? Isn't it a little late to be talking about these matters seeing that school starts in two weeks.
CMS, sounds like you're letting the fox in the hen house. Many education experts say that the push to equip classrooms with computers/Ipads is unwarranted because studies do not show that this leads to better test scores or other measurable gains.
Certainly advocates for equipping schools with technology say computers can hold students’ attention and that young brains who have been weaned on electronic devices will not tune in without them.
Technology in early learning and development will be a distraction and even a detriment to real learning. It becomes a crutch for both teachers and learners. What's important in early education is for children to develop their natural ability to learn and problem solve in any context through communication, interactivity and creativity. We should not be so quick to equip elementary schools with new technologies simply because it's available or because we think it will give us an edge in global competition (by using these tech devices in elementary school). Computers today are so easy to learn to use at any age, quickly and effectively. There are only a few short, critical years of early development which to teach a child the basics of being human, how to love learning, be curious, and the best ways of working/playing and problem solving with others. There is no app for that, and I don't think there ever will be.
I am fairly certain of one thing about CMS. Its principals know how to use the language of transformation but absolutely do not know how to enact it! Many of the administrators in CMS were failed teachers and continue the same pattern as administrators.
If everyone would only listen to Bill Gates and Eli Broad things would be so much better. Gates made his money through nefarious means "Taking from IBM" and Broad ran ING into the ground, what better role models could public education get?
When Bill Gates was giving away computers to schools and public libraries in the 1990s people thought "Wow, what a great guy and generous philanthropist!" but they did not see that Gates was all about Gates and Microsoft. He did it only to corner the market in the software industry. I would caution everyone to look closely at any gift being offered by Bill Gates not matter what he processes about public education.
As the first grade teacher began the math portion of class, she asked Johnny; "If I have two apples in this hand and two apples in the other hand and put them into one basket, how many apples do I have?"
Little Johnny thinks for a second... "you have 2,000".
The teacher asks, "how did you come up with 2,000?"
Little Johnny replies, "Each one of those cool iPads the kind folks gave us costs $500 dollars each".
Pamela, I do remember that now that the clips have refreshed my memory. And I remember there are two very similar ERS groups, too. Travers is with Education Resource Strategies, linked in this post.
Hey Ann,
Ah, the Gorman years. I particularly liked the part where the Travers admitted to you that there wasn't any research to back up the strategies they were recommending, but that ERS was sticking by them anyway.
Good points made by some of the posters here. The people who actually want to have computers and personal technology devices in schools are parents thinking it gives their kids an edge in the future job market and the CMS Educrats who think this will give the district national accolades.
However, those of us who work in the industry know that the high tech competitive edge doesn't come from using computers from an early age, it comes from having the right kind of mindset and approach to problem solving. I think my daughter is more likely to learn those and other important skills from me and from other human beings than from machines.
How can CMS say they don't know if this will translate into using Apple products when CMS just purchased thousands of iPads to hand out to all elementary/middle school teachers?
Pay Teachers and bring back their benefits !
COMMON GOAL for a COMMON CORE
CMS is not even wireless ready yet in all schools this is a joke. Even further proving Scott Murri did not do his job or did his boss Gorman. More waste at the executive level. Cut the fat and pay the teachers and staff a living wage already!
Welcome to CMS, where the Fad of the year continues. The elementary teachers at my school are sick and tired of the math and literacy program changes EVERY YEAR, even though the "old" methods worked. Why are they continually changing what works at the school level?
Technology Services department, how many hours a day will our children be spending in front of a screen on their personal technology devices at school 2013/2014 (through the BYOT program)?
I wonder what happened to the idea of an integrated approach to learning. One that includes the methods necessary to teach critical thinking skills and use of technology to enhance those methods. Technology is supposed to be a tool used to improve one's ability to do a job at which they have some know-how. This notion of "one or the other" seems to be missing the fundamental element of the principles of the IB program. Is it better to drive a nail with your hand or a hammer? Lets make the proper use of the tools we have available...including technology!
Post a Comment