It seems we’ve crossed one digital divide only to find another. The old worry was that the tech revolution would pass low-income youth by, because devices and internet access didn’t come cheap. According to an article in yesterday’s New York Times, unequal access to technology may be less of a concern than differences in how students use that technology.
The Times notes that we’ve narrowed, if not closed, the technology gap between the haves and the have nots. Yet it points to findings by the Kaiser Family Foundation (among other sources) that low-income youth tend to spend much more time on their devices than their wealthier peers do--and very little time using them for educational purposes.
Why the difference? Experts speculate that low-income parents, who have little experience with technology themselves, are less able to regulate their children's use of technology.
One possible answer is better training for parents and students in how to use technology. The Times reports that the FCC is apparently weighing a proposal to "spend $200 million to create a digital literacy corps. This group of hundreds, even thousands, of trainers would fan out to schools and libraries to teach productive uses of computers for parents, students and job seekers."
Here's another idea: Let's revive computer science in schools. Douglas Rushkoff poses this critical question in his book Program or Be Programmed: "Do we direct technology, or do we let ourselves be directed by it and those who have mastered it?"
The answer should be clear. If we spread access to technology without without equipping students to understand, apply and create technology, then the end of the digital divide might turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory.
The government's new report on "The Condition of Education" in 2012 contains good news and bad news. More to the point, it reveals critical areas where there is no news, because we lack vital data. Those blind spots seriously hinder our decision making.
Let's start with some good news. Scores in 4th and 8th grade have been steadily rising over the past two decades. In high school, more students have been taking challenging math and science classes. In 2009, 16 percent of high school graduates had taken calculus, up from 7 percent in 1990. In Algebra II, coursetaking rose from 54 to 76 percent. Geometry? Sixty-four to 88 percent. Science shows similar results. In Chemistry, for example, coursetaking in Chemistry rose from 49 to 70 percent over the same time period.
Now for some bad news. Scores in 12th grade math haven't really budged over the past twenty years. It's not entirely clear why. Some argue that high school seniors are much less likely than 4th or 8th graders to take a no-stakes test like the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) seriously. Others say that higher course titles can be deceiving. A course that bears the name of Algebra II, for example, might really be a close cousin of Algebra I--or worse. Whatever the reason, the lack of movement in 12th grade scores should worry us, because it suggests that at least some of those 4th and 8th grade gains are evaporating in high school.
And now no news. How much progress have our 12th graders been making in science? We don't know, because the framework for the science NAEP changed in 2009, making long-term comparisons impossible. How are individual states doing in 12th grade math and science? We're not sure, because no states take part on the 12th grade science test, and only 11 states take part in the math test.
Unfortunately, it's not true that no news is good news. If we're serious about getting many more students ready for college and careers in science, technology, engineering or math (STEM), we can't very well tolerate such a serious blind spot in 12th grade.
On occasion, CTEq welcomes guest blogs about key issues or engaging ideas that may be of interest to our audience. Lorita D. Watson, a Brooklyn Technical alumnae, is the founder of Empowerment via Education and Technology.
The New York City public high school system is 70% African- Americans and Latinos, yet they represent less than 15% of the population in the city’s competitive specialized high schools. And many students are not immediately ready for the challenge of the Specialized High Schools Admissions Test (SHSAT), which has been in existence by law since 1972 and is the only objective means of entering these prestigious schools. Each year, more than 25,000 students take the test in hopes of gaining one of the 5,000 open seats.
Yet the tide may be turning, thanks in large part to concerned alumni. After decades of continuous decline, Stuyvesant, Bronx Science, and Brooklyn Technical—known as the Big 3—as well as the five newer schools, noted a 14% rise in 2012 of African-American and Latino students.
As graduates of Stuyvesant, Bronx Science, and Brooklyn Technical high schools, the Black Brown Big 3 alumni know what is required to succeed in a rigorous program. Most of us came from neighborhood schools around the city that once created a pipeline for the specialized schools by offering Special Programs (SP) for talented and gifted students. In contrast, today only a handful of neighborhood schools are deemed Gifted and Talented, such as Mark Twain Middle School, which continues to be a pipeline for specialized high schools.
Alumni stepped up to the plate in several ways:
In addition to academic support, alumni offer mentoring, as many African American and Latino students don’t feel as though they fit in. Realizing part of the challenge was having qualified students take the test, local alumni did outreach at each NY DOE high school information sessions in all boroughs, speaking to parents and students about the benefits of attending these schools.
Those benefits are enormous. For example, many graduates of Brooklyn Technical, the largest STEM high school in country, go on to prestigious colleges and universities and pursue noteworthy and lucrative STEM careers. These specialized high schools are the gateway to the world.
For more insight on NYC’s specialized high schools, watch the Inside Schools segment.
Will girls get more interested in science if we feminize it, make it more stereotypically "girly"? Not really, say the authors of a new study out of the University of Michigan. In fact, such efforts might even do more harm than good.
Girls often lose interest in math and science when they're in middle school, leading some to speculate that feminizing those subject might help turn things around. The U of M researchers put this idea to the test, showing middle schools successful women displaying traditionally feminine characteristics such as makeup and pink clothes. Girls exposed to such role models reported a decrease of interest in math and science.
Girls were more motivated by images of female scientists dressed in more gender-neutral clothes, wearing glasses or reading. The study's authors speculate that "girls not interested in math and science saw simultaneous success in both domains at least attainable, suggesting that their lack of motivation was related to the perceived unlikelihood of combining femininity and STEM [science, technology, engineering and math] success."
In other words, traditionally feminine images carry so much baggage that they erode girls' interest in STEM.
So should we demonize makeup and the color pink? Certainly not, unless we want fuel the very stereotypes we strive against. Yet if the study is right (and we should always treat single studies like this one with caution), then "feminizing" math and science in the most superficial sense may not be the way to go.
Yet let's not conclude that we should therefore present math and science in the same way to girls and boys. Study after study has shown that girls are more likely to respond to STEM fields when they see how much value work in those fields can bring to society. Concern for the greater good is not an exclusively feminine trait, mind you. But a focus on the social impact of STEM might affect girls more strongly than visions of pink dresses do.
Look no farther than Florida for a vision of what may come. State leaders put tougher 8th-grade writing tests into place and then blanched when the passing rates plunged from 81 to 27 percent. The state then turned tail and lowered the passing bar. We don’t want to repeat that storyline when tougher common math and English tests come on line in two or three years. The political pressures to back down from a high bar will be formidable. It’s not a moment too soon to prepare the public for what to expect.
The common tests states are creating to align with the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) will by most accounts be more challenging than what most states have in place now. The math tests will require students to show better abstract reasoning ability, make sense of problems, and model with math, for example. If states adopt the common tests, they will have to set common passing scores on those tests amidst major public scrutiny. They can’t very well set a low bar without attracting a lot of notice. When students who did fine on the old tests don't clear the higher bar, states will have some explaining to do, and their resolve to stick with common standards and tests may waver.
Yet they don't have to follow in Florida's footsteps. Just look at Tennessee. When the state raised the bar in 7th grade math in 2009, passing rates on the test dropped from more than 90 percent to under 30 percent in one year. This came as no surprise to Tennessee leaders, who had already mounted an aggressive public awareness campaign called "Expect More, Achieve More." The campaign made clear that earlier results were vastly inflated and made higher expectations a point of pride. There has been no very serious public backlash.
States across the country can follow Tennessee's lead. Even though the vast majority have adopted the common standards and seem open to common tests, many still have low expectations for their students. It's not too early for them to follow Tennessee's lead and raise the bar while preparing students and parents for the coming shock. Why simply postpone the inevitable?
None of this is easy. No Child Left Behind's goal of lifting all students to proficiency by 2014 seems more than a little naive as states raise the bar. And big changes to the tests are complicating states' plans to rate teachers on their students' growth as measured by those tests.
Some of this is the price of progress. States and the feds need to adjust their policies so that higher standards don't wreak havoc in the short term. But if states beat a retreat on standards, we'll have lost the battle and the war.