澳门跑狗论坛

When North Carolina鈥檚 launched a 1-to-1 laptop initiative three years ago, Superintendent Mark Edwards prepared himself for an"innovation dip,鈥� a small drop in student performance as educators and students adjusted to the new approach.

He says he anticipated it would take time for students and teachers to master the use of laptop computers, digital curricula, and more personalized ways of teaching and learning. Though he believed that in the long run the approach would benefit students and be borne out in test scores, Edwards says he and the school board were mentally and philosophically prepared for a drop in scores over the first couple of years as the 5,600-student district worked out the kinks.

But just the opposite happened.

In three years, the district went from ranking 30th in the state in school performance measurements to fourth, and Edwards says he is gunning for first place this year. District officials saw boosts in other areas, too. Suspensions dropped at the high school level by 65 percent and districtwide by 50 percent, Edwards says.

鈥淪tudents like using relevant tools and materials,鈥� he says. 鈥淭he kids are more engaged and excited about school. They鈥檙e doing things in class and saying, 鈥業 will do this in my future.鈥� 鈥�

Balancing digital innovation and academic accountability is a tricky task for schools鈥攐ne that is fraught with worries about what will work and what won鈥檛. Schools want to utilize new tools and embrace different ways of teaching, but not at the expense of their performance on state achievement tests. Experts say finding that balance through trial and error is one of the keys to improving schools.

鈥淭he ways you measure quality and hold folks accountable are going to limit your ability to solve new problems,鈥� says Frederick M. Hess, the director of education policy studies for the American Enterprise Institute, in Washington, and the author of the book Customized Schooling: Beyond Whole-School Reform. If K-12 policymakers insist on holding fast to grade-level assessments in reading and math currently used to determine whether a school or district is succeeding, Hess says, 鈥渨hat we鈥檙e going to do is limit the kinds of solutions that are going to emerge.鈥�

鈥楳aintaining a Bad Situation鈥�

Christopher Dede, a professor of educational technology at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, likes to use the analogy of a hospital when he talks about balancing innovation and accountability in education. If a hospital with a high death rate refused to try new, modern practices because they鈥檇 be unsure of the outcome or there might be a learning curve, 鈥減eople would be upset because they鈥檙e maintaining a bad situation under the guise of being accountable,鈥� he says.

The translation to education is the same, Dede says. Schools are often reluctant to incorporate new technology and apply 21st-century methods because they鈥檙e worried about a drop in test scores or other risks in shaking up the way things are done. But schools need to think about all the ways they鈥檙e accountable鈥攏ot just through scores on state tests, Dede says. Schools are also accountable to students to provide a high-quality education, and to parents and local business leaders to produce students prepared for college and careers. And yes, they鈥檙e also accountable to state and federal educational leaders in the form of test scores, Dede acknowledges.

As a consequence, the approach to balancing innovation and accountability in K-12 schools needs to be particularly thoughtful, says John Danner, the co-founder and chief executive officer of , which runs charter schools for 1,000 elementary-age students at three campuses in San Jose, Calif. At Rocketship, students spend part of the day in a traditional face-to-face classroom and part of the day in a Learning Lab, where they use computer software to improve their literacy and math skills. The schools, whose students are primarily low-income English-language learners, have quickly risen to the top on California test scores, outpacing many more affluent schools.

While Danner鈥檚 model relies on technology for innovation, that technology is only used when it adds value to the student-achievement equation."We have to be really careful that these programs are productive for kids,鈥� he says. 鈥淚f they鈥檙e not, you鈥檙e really costing kids learning time.鈥�

But how do you move forward with such an innovation, when there isn鈥檛 definitive proof that it will work? That is the key question educators and policymakers are grappling with.

Under the education priorities of President George W. Bush鈥檚 administration, the catchphrase 鈥渞esearch base鈥� was drilled into educators鈥� heads when it came to new programs and initiatives. If it wasn鈥檛 research-based, it wasn鈥檛 worth adopting.

But technology innovations occur so rapidly that it鈥檚 often impossible to do scientifically based trials proving effectiveness before schools embrace new approaches. Think of social-networking tools, iPads, and e-readers. And what other new digital-learning tools might also emerge well before scientifically based research can justify their use in classrooms?

Kathy Onarheim, the director of the Institute at the Cooperative Educational Service Agency #1 for 45 school districts in southeastern Wisconsin, helps districts incorporate innovative technology. The region often relies on rapid prototyping to determine which initiatives have potential. The design, implementation, and analysis of a pilot project takes months instead of years, and then the approach is quickly sent out to other districts to replicate, Onarheim says.

She says she encourages her districts to use the 鈥�80 percent鈥� rule. 鈥淲hen we鈥檙e 80 percent sure of something, we go forward, rather than waiting until it鈥檚 150 percent perfect. Otherwise, we鈥檇 never do anything鈥� Onarheim says. 鈥淲e need to take that challenge and move forward and innovate.鈥�

One district, for example wanted to target middle school algebra and decided to use special instructional videos. The district was able to monitor in real time whether the effort was helping students grasp the material, she says. At the , which receives state funding based on how many students successfully complete a course, officials try out projects on a small scale for a short time before offering new programs to all students, says Pam Birtolo, the chief learning officer for the 97,000-student online school, based in Orlando.

When the school piloted its now-popular Conspiracy Code video game for studying American history, administrators gave any student enrolled in the experimental course the option to move at any time to the more traditional American history course offered by the school.

Florida Virtual officials also collected massive amounts of data from the students enrolled. The information wasn鈥檛 limited to student test scores. It also focused on whether students liked the graphics and interface of the course, Birtolo says.

鈥淚t鈥檚 not just an assessment; there鈥檚 an attitudinal thing going on鈥� she says. 鈥淲e want to know how the student engages and learns, and how the student retains information.鈥�

Faster Research Tactics

Today鈥檚 new assessment technology makes it much easier to measure in real time whether a program is having its desired effect, giving educators more immediate incentives to take risks, says Tom Vander Ark, the chief executive officer of OpenEd Solutions, a Federal Way, Wash.-based blended learning service provider. Even just a few years ago, collecting such data was more difficult, often creating frustratingly long lag times between when assessments were given and when teachers and students saw the results and could act on them.

Now, 鈥淚nstead of randomized long-term control trials, we can use rapid short-cycle control trials,鈥� Vander Ark says."You can get good results in three hours and not three years.鈥�

Often, educational innovations don鈥檛 translate into higher numbers on state tests, as they did in Mooresville. But that doesn鈥檛 mean they鈥檙e not valuable, some educators say.

Seven years ago, the 2,000-student , in Bergen County, N.J., adopted a 1-to-1 laptop program, using digital curricula. The district, which serves students in grades 9-12, had reasonably high test scores already, and the high-tech initiative didn鈥檛 add to or detract from them, says Erik Gundersen, the district鈥檚 director of curriculum, instruction, and assessment, who was recently named superintendent and was a supervisor of science and technology education at the time the initiative began.

The overarching goal of the initiative, however, was not directed at raising test scores, Gundersen says. Instead, the district focused on embracing the 21st-century skills students need in today鈥檚 world. When students use project-based learning, employ videoconferencing to work with Arizona students on an ongoing immigration project, or collaborate using Ning or Google Docs, district officials and the school board believe students are benefiting, even if there is no measurable impact on test scores.

Still, it鈥檚 worth pointing out that the district doesn鈥檛 ignore accountability measures, either. Teachers work together to link students鈥� projects to state standards 鈥榮o we make sure there鈥檚 a valid connection there, and we鈥檙e always under pressure to make sure that test scores are where they need to be鈥� Gundersen says.

But he says the imbalance between innovation and accountability occurs because paper-and-pencil standardized exams don鈥檛 always measure those 21st-century skills the district is emphasizing.

Dede, of the Harvard Graduate School of Education, believes districts and states need to develop a 鈥渕ultidimensional scale of accountability鈥� that values responsible innovation and change in addition to test scores.

鈥淭he structural problem is there鈥檚 a single mode of accountability being applied,鈥� he says. 鈥淭he only dimension is test scores.鈥�

Officials at the U.S. Department of Education, where federal accountability requirements have shaped the educational landscape since the 2001 passage of the No Child Left Behind Act, also known as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, seem to be also moving in that direction as the law comes up for renewal.

鈥淎s our blueprint for ESEA reauthorization describes, we have to create space and flexibility for schools to have room to make mistakes and recover without overly penalizing them,鈥� says James H. Shelton, the department鈥檚 assistant deputy secretary for innovation and improvement.

But those with decisionmaking power often have only existing test scores to rely on, says Jeff Mao, the learning technology policy director for , which aims to equip middle and high school students in the state with laptops. He says he runs into that problem when he goes to state lawmakers for financial support.

鈥淲e do have some data鈥� to show the Maine initiative is working, he says, 鈥渂ut it鈥檚 hard to get a double-blind, gold-standard research study to speak to that notion.鈥�

Lawmakers sometimes ask whether the initiative could use a control group and compare it with the group using the high-tech programs, Mao says. 鈥淏ut we asked legislators if they wanted their son or daughter to get the placebo versus the students who are getting the latest and greatest,鈥� he says, pointing out that everyone wants to be in the group using the innovative techniques. 鈥淓ducation is not something that is as easily measured as a new widget. ... There are a million variables.鈥�

Mao says he believes educators are wary of innovation because of concerns about having a negative impact on children鈥檚 education. 鈥淭hey鈥檙e not averse to change; they鈥檙e afraid to do something that鈥檚 not right for kids,鈥� he says, 鈥渨hich makes it a real challenge to do anything.鈥�

Accountability 2.0?

In New York鈥檚 4,100-student , within commuting distance of New York City, officials have tried to create their own version of Dede鈥檚 multidimensional accountability scale. In 2007, the district鈥檚 school board adopted a strategic question as an underlying philosophy of education. The question asks how the district can go beyond content knowledge and focus on ensuring that all students 鈥渓earn to think deeply, support their thinking, apply problem-solving skills, and actively participate in their learning.鈥�

Based on that philosophy, a more thoughtful process of adopting innovative technologies to improve teaching and learning has occurred, says Darleen M. Nicolosi, the director of instructional technology for the district. 鈥淲e try to move beyond the test scores to more creative and critical thinking for our students,鈥� she says.

In doing so, the district doesn鈥檛 separate the use of new technology from that goal. 鈥淲e incorporate emerging technologies in a natural progression鈥� along with the educational goals in the district, she says.

As part of that approach, the district has developed its own Web 2.0 think tank of teachers and educational leaders to study emerging technologies and their place in the classroom. The district also has an administrators鈥� network that meets regularly to observe new technology in the classroom.

鈥淲e鈥檙e not focused on technology bells and whistles,鈥� Nicolosi says. 鈥淲e鈥檙e focused on what improves teaching and learning.鈥�