Two more videos about The School of One in New York City. If you haven’t already seen it, be sure to also watch the program overview video.
Happy viewing!
Two more videos about The School of One in New York City. If you haven’t already seen it, be sure to also watch the program overview video.
Happy viewing!
A few thoughts on the videos/program:
I love the what that they started out using questions from the teachers and administrators, and I’m sure that this works wonderfully as a summer enrichment program (and I’m not at all surprised that they chose Mathematics to start, as it’s probably the easiest to quickly assess and generate a variety of instructional types and levels)
I do have several concerns and questions about the idea though:
* Sounds odd with a name like “School of One”, but how well does this scale up? There is some economy of scale in identification of lessons, but this appears to be a staff to student ratio of 2 or 3 support for every student. I’m sure that that will improve with a larger implementation, but will it reach the ratio that school districts can staff and afford?
* Summer programs are a self-selected sample. Either the students or parents are motivated to be there. I’m waiting see this with a real population (no videos up from the Spring and Fall Sessions yet?). “Lab School” results that don’t work in “Real School” environments are common from studies.
And the Elephant in the Room:
I don’t think that any teachers that I know would turn down an opportunity to work with a program like this, but are programs like this actually helping, or are these merely “show schools” that are not reproducible and rather than inspiring change in the total educational system will be used as a big stick to beat on other schools not doing this or not getting these results (for the very practical reasons of not being able to afford or staff it). Is this a true model for reform, or are the rest of public schools being set up?
Dangerously Irrelevant: thanks for the link.
To Bill: we are extremely conscientious about the importance of creating a scalable solution rather than a “show school.” It has been the intent from the very start that School of One be something that can be implemented at any school that’s got the staff and support to make it work.
-Mickey Muldoon
Manager, External Affairs
School of One
mmuldoon2@schools.nyc.gov
I am putting together a list of the top 100 administrator blogs, and I was wondering if I could ask you a few questions about you and your blog to include more information in my article. Please e-mail me (alexisbrett@gmail.com) and include the title of your blog in the e-mail, thanks!
My administration and team of teachers from our school visited the School of One and were very impressed. The largest issue they had, however, was in fact the funding. As of right now it takes a sizable team of adults to do analyze the data and map out the instruction for each student. The adult-to-student ratio is fantastic, but our class sizes are at thirty and there is not a foreseeable solution to the funding problem.
That said, we’re looking to modify the model and tailor it to a school with a normal budget.
I watched the introductory video and also checked out the list of sponsors. I am having a difficult time understanding how this type of ‘education’ will provide meaningful and relevant learning or how it would lead to the development of students who can think critically, work together, and solve problems. It seems centered around extremely low level skill-based curricula. I see this as the epitome of wasteful use of very expensive technology. I get very frustrated with the view of teaching and learning as a simplistic and mechanical process. I kept hearing the phrase “effective instruction” and assessment and saw no evidence of either.
I too wonder about scalability due to resources (staff and sponsorships) but have hope that spin-offs may serve the needs of the special needs population.
My fingers are crossed hoping the project takes off and proves highly successful.
I agree with Sue. While the idea of personalising learning is laudable and something every educational institution should be trying to achieve, the methods School of One uses in order to realise this goal are fundamentally flawed.
This is individualised instruction, it is not personalised learning. Personalised learning requires the student to map out their own learning pathways in negotiation with their insitution / teacher. Here, it seems that an algorithm determines how a student will learn.
It seems the School of One wants to turn the learning process into a science rather than an art. As Sue says, learning is not a mechanical process. It is complicated, messy and organic. The idea that a computer can determine the ways in which an individual should learn is ludicrous. I cringed when I heard reference to learning styles and pulling out lessons to suit a so-called visual learner. Once again, learning styles are a flawed idea and yet another attempt by some educators to try and tidy up the learning process. The reality is we learn in many different ways and should continue to develop ourselves in many different ways.
There is also a reliance on data, tests and that horrible term, “instruction”.
It seems traditional notions of learning hold sway here, rather than a more progressive move to learner directed education and evidence based assessment (not grades).
Laudable ideas, but terrible implementation.