Some thoughts on the Nov 10 Supt. Meeting at CHS

My main purpose here is to pick up on the conversation we had in a different thread about what we should teach. We had discussions on saving the music curriculum in the schools, which I agree with, and should we teach more modern courses like more sections of robotics including advanced robotics, coding (Java, Python and any other language deemed appropriate), electronics, modern shop (3D printers, CAD, laser cutters, etc).'

The Supt. meeting has only two breakout sessions on what we should teach with almost all the other sessions devoted to topics more closely related to how we teach or philosophy of education.

Here's one article that we should at least think about. I copied some of the article below the link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/technology/toyota-silicon-valley-artificial-intelligence-research-center.html?_r=0

PALO ALTO, Calif. — Silicon Valley is diving into artificial intelligence technology, with start-ups sprouting up and Google and Facebook pouring vast sums into projects that would teach machines how to learn and make decisions. Now Toyota wants a piece of the action.

Toyota, the Japanese auto giant, on Friday announced a five-year, billion research and development effort headquartered here. As planned, the compound would be one of the largest research laboratories in Silicon Valley.

Conceived as a research facility bridging basic science and commercial engineering, it will be organized as a new company to be named Toyota Research Institute. Toyota will initially have a laboratory adjacent to Stanford University and another near M.I.T. in Cambridge, Mass.

Toyota’s investment invites comparisons to earlier research initiatives, such as the Palo Alto Research Center, or PARC, created by Xerox in 1970 to help the company compete with IBM. Xerox was never able to find a strategy to make it a significant player in computing, but the technologies invented at PARC during the next decade were used by Apple and Microsoft to completely remake the computer industry.

*******

We have no coding instruction other than on-line courses or independent study at Columbia. We have one section of robotics. Personally, this is a complete disgrace and it is not the case that teachers haven't been vocal about it. We do live in the 21st century and not the 20th century. People who get paid a lot more than I do should be able to figure this one out.

Issues related to this include space allocation for a set of modern courses, hiring appropriate teaching staff, investing in equipment to support this. I know some here disagree. But consider just what future are we planning for the kids?

Here is a story about robotic taxis Japan is hoping to deploy for the Olympics they are hosting in Tokyo in 2020:

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/11/why-japan-is-building-a-fleet-of-robot-taxis/413743/

The Wall Street Journal on Nov 3 ran a story about employment and income for tech majors and liberal arts majors. The news, at least in that article, seemed to indicate that tech majors had a better chance of a decent income.

My position is that whether one goes to and graduates from a four-year institution or not, it is useful to have some training in the technical side of things. Why not? So far, I haven't seen a good reason for not offering such training. A lot of people are fully prepared to defend training our kids in Ping Pong or Latin or other subjects -- we spend more money on Ping Pong and Latin than we do on coding and robotics combined; does that make sense in terms of priorities?

The really high growth corporations are in the tech area and the heavy industry companies -- auto for example and most manufacturers -- have shifted over to being very high tech. There are extremely sound reasons to institute tech courses at Columbia as that is where the world has already gotten to and will only go further: Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon and tons of other companies are huge and what they do is changing what other companies do. Go look at what Google is doing with autonomous cars and track how that has influenced the auto industry.

I think on Tuesday, in addition to the issues that many in this community feel important, that as many as possible raise the idea of what we teach is as important as how we teach. I firmly believe that if we change what we teach we will help (not solve, but help) engage more kids and see them do better in school.

All good points. On the one hand, I have to acknowledge that how I was taught in middle and high school has stuck with me a lot longer, and served me better over all, than what I was taught. On the other hand, a consequential exception was typing class.

(A comment that, if nothing else, gives this thread a deserved bump.)

I figured I'd paste the topics here:

Education Summit Topics

Creating a District Culture of Respect, High Expectations, Support and Innovation

•  Access & Equity / Academic placement
•  Achievement Gap
•  Arts Education
•  CHS – Fostering a Culture of Respect and High Expectations (Issues may include: Access and Equity/Choice, Setting all students up for success, Discipline, Increasing the Graduation Rate, Supporting students in post-CHS studies)
•  CHS – Reimagining the High School Experience (Issues may include: School start times/school hours, Rethinking homework, Alternative paths, Career Prep)
•  Creating Innovators
•  Cultural Competency
•  Deep Engagement and Exhilarating Experiences of the Whole Student in Their Learning (Issues may include 21st Century Learning approaches such as Interdisciplinary connections, Curriculum alignment, Writing across the curriculum, Project-based learning, and regular updates to ensure relevance, as well as specific fields of study)
•  Discipline (Issues may include: Restorative Practices, School Culture)
•  Extended School Day/After School Activities
•  Family/School Connections
•  Gifted and Talented Strategies
•  Humanities and Social Justice
•  Life Skills and Healthy Choices (Issues may include: Developing Leadership, Organizational Skills, Planning for the future, and Drug-free schools)
•  Meeting the Needs of ALL Learners – Struggling, Middle, and Advanced (Issues may include: Supports for academically struggling, middle of the road, and advanced students; from preschool – post-CHS; Boys’ Development)
•  Profiling Black Students
•  Redistricting/School Pairings
•  Refreshing Our Buildings to be Relevant for Today’s Learners (Issues may include Capital Improvement Plan, Facilities)
•  Reimagining Public Education (Issues may include: Blow up the plan, Role of homework, Personalized learning plans)
•  Reimagining Seth Boyden
•  Resources (Issues may include: How do we offer more with less? Maximizing dollars without sacrificing quality, State funding, Partnering with outside organizations, Class size)
•  School Safety (Issues may include SROs/security guards)
•  Social/Emotional Learning
•  Special Education (Issues may include: Communications, Administration of Services, Curriculum Access, Elementary School Services, Secondary School Services)
•  STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math)
•  Supporting Excellent Teaching/Professional Development

DaveSchmidt said:
All good points. On the one hand, I have to acknowledge that how I was taught in middle and high school has stuck with me a lot longer, and served me better over all, than what I was taught. On the other hand, a consequential exception was typing class.
(A comment that, if nothing else, gives this thread a deserved bump.)

Interesting comment. In thinking about it, I can state that (with only a few exceptions in the area of lit) it wasn't until college that the what became more memorable and relevant than the how. And in terms of career, even less so even through college, as I majored in two disciplines that directly had little to do with my day-to-day now in terms of subject matter but irreplaceable (IMO) in terms of critical thinking.

Of course, whether the how or the what has more of an impact on a student will differ depending to the individual, and my takeaway from Jude's posts, here and elsewhere, is that the balance is out of whack. I could quibble about lumping Latin in with table tennis (if Latin can teach a kid what I got out of working for C's in calculus -- an even deader language in my life -- I'm for it), but can understand how the tech sciences have some ground to make up.

oh absolutely. I just question the relevance of content at the HS level except in rare(r) cases, and think the subject matter as concept/impetus has more relevance. The question remains whether offering courses to spur an interest (that may lead to a career in the field, since that's what Kude has as the end game) is sufficient enough grounds alone. I'm not sure, to be honest, but one could easily argue the seed has to be planted somewhere.

An excellent book to read is Machines of Loving Grace by John Markoff of the NY Times. The relentless march toward more and more automation is transforming many, many fields of employment -- agriculture, manufacturing, the legal profession, medicine, entertainment in all areas (think of The Life of Pi with a local resident. Tim Squyres, nominated for an Academy Award for the work he did in projecting a tiger into the film seamlessly), on-line shopping of course, education, journalism and just about any field one can think of. While some people will do extremely well in this increasingly automated environment, others may find their skills and talents discarded by the wayside. IBM and its Watson computer system is relentlessly pursuing transforming the legal profession, especially in the area of civil litigation. They are likewise pursuing a complete overhaul of the medical imaging discipline.

My point on the simple fact that the District appears to be oblivious (well, not everyone; there are some in leadership who do realize things are out of whack) to the fact that world has changed. If climate is changing we expect our leaders to take some kind of action to reduce the impact. Why not in education?

The world has changed due to massive and unrelenting investment in technology -- software, AI, robotics. Can we prepare kids in this sense: let them be exposed more to the nuts and bolts of this world rather than simply scrolling on Chromebooks and using social media? Generations back students were exposed to the key industries of the day in classes like auto shop. Some kids went on to that career and others became more knowledgeable about cars. Not everyone became a mechanic and nor did everyone become a poet, or a linguist, or a scientist, or a mathematician, or a coach or writer or a historian or a journalist or a musician or an actor. Our students became more knowledgeable in these areas; some pursued them in college or work. We still teach all these disciplines except those that may to some seem "practical." Why can't more of our students take some courses in coding and robotics and electronics? I simply do not understand the resistance to this. What is the benefit to the students when we deny these types of courses? How are they helped by not offering them? Aren't there some who would become more engaged in school if they had access to these courses?

If I said eliminate Latin as course offering I am sure there would be a lot on this board and elsewhere who would disagree. That's fine as I am not saying eliminate Latin. But those who do defend Latin will come up with arguments that talk about how kids will benefit from this course. I defend the tech courses and the arguments posed are actually pretty powerful when they are laid on top of the overwhelming and massive investment that continues relentlessly in AI, robotics, software and electronics, affecting virtually every field of endeavor.

Another book, although a bit weird in terms of the author's style, is Unmanned: Drones, Data and the Illusion of Perfect Warfare by William Arkin. He documents the history of drone deployment and advancements by the military. If you do read it, ponder some of the advancements made by drones and associated AI. This aspect of technology, no matter how many on this board or elsewhere oppose drones, is never going away. And since it is never going away, the applications will also never go away -- farmers use drones for monitoring crops; the military uses the tiniest of drones (insect size) to make identifications of individuals and imagine what Google would do with that; drones are used to survey roads, pipelines, earthquake faults, drought damage, river flows, animal populations, damage due to storms, and on and on and on. Drones are aerial robots and they can be autonomous or controlled, just like land robots. The principles are the same; the tech is only slightly different.

I have a flight club and we are waiting on whether we can insurance from the District. While there won't be a course in aerial robots, you and I should know this is another aspect of life that has now changed and will remain with us for the next generation. Why can't we teach this in a responsible manner?

Thank you Jude

ctrzaska said:

DaveSchmidt said:
All good points. On the one hand, I have to acknowledge that how I was taught in middle and high school has stuck with me a lot longer, and served me better over all, than what I was taught. On the other hand, a consequential exception was typing class.
(A comment that, if nothing else, gives this thread a deserved bump.)

Interesting comment. In thinking about it, I can state that (with only a few exceptions in the area of lit) it wasn't until college that the what became more memorable and relevant than the how. And in terms of career, even less so even through college, as I majored in two disciplines that directly had little to do with my day-to-day now in terms of subject matter but irreplaceable (IMO) in terms of critical thinking.

The content knowledge or subject matter of what you learned doesn't appear as relevant because it operates in the background.

This video is about what makes a good reader, but it illustrates the point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiP-ijdxqEc

And I would guess you are probably subject matter experts now in your current fields. Though Dave's job requires him to know a little about everything.