PROFESSORES PERCEBEM FATORES SOCIAIS COMO JUSTIFICATIVA PARA FRACASSO DE ALUNO

 Luiza Bandeira 30 Jan 2018 (atualizado 31/Jan 10h44) Para especialistas, docentes precisam de mais formação para se verem como protagonistas no processo de alfabetização e educação 

Link para matéria: https://www.nexojornal.com.br/expresso/2018/01/30/Professores-atribuem-fracasso-de-aluno-%C3%A0-origem-social.-O-que-isso-indica

© 2017 | Todos os direitos deste material são reservados ao NEXO JORNAL LTDA., conforme a Lei nº 9.610/98. A sua publicação, redistribuição, transmissão e reescrita sem autorização prévia é proibida. 

 Dados da Prova Brasil, do MEC, mostram que professores brasileiros consideram que a família e a origem socioeconômica do aluno são fatores mais importantes para justificar problemas de aprendizagem que a própria atuação do docente e da escola. O levantamento foi feito pelo Iede (Interdisciplinaridade e Evidências no Debate Educacional) com exclusividade para o Nexo. Quando questionados, 94% dos professores apontaram a falta de acompanhamento dos pais como possível explicação para maus resultados. Fatores ligados à gestão e ao professor, como desestímulo e sobrecarga dos docentes, foram citados por 30% (era possível escolher mais de uma resposta). Para especialistas, os resultados indicam percepção de pouca importância do papel e da capacidade do professor para melhorar resultados escolares. Para mudar esse cenário, apontam a necessidade de mudanças na formação dos professores e profissionalização da carreira. Como foi feito o levantamento O Iede analisou dados da Prova Brasil - avaliação feita pelo Inep, do Ministério da Educação - de 2015. O exame tem um questionário que é aplicado a alunos e professores. Foram analisadas as respostas de 262.417 professores do 5º e do 9º ano do ensino fundamental da rede pública. Uma das perguntas era: “Na sua percepção, os possíveis problemas de aprendizagem dos alunos das série(s) ou ano(s) avaliado(s) ocorrem, nesta escola, devido à/ao(s):”. Falta de acompanhamento dos pais foi citada por 94% dos docentes. A segunda alternativa mais citada foi desinteresse e falta de esforço do aluno, e 83% citaram o meio social em que o estudante vive.   Já questões ligadas ao professor e à gestão foram menos mencionadas. Sobrecarga de trabalho, que dificulta o planejamento e o preparo das aulas, foi citada por 30% dos docentes, enquanto insatisfação e desestímulo do professor com a carreira docente foram mencionados por 29%.   O papel da família e do professor Há um debate, no campo da educação, sobre o papel da família e da escola no aprendizado do aluno. Uma das pesquisas mais importantes na área, o relatório Coleman, feito nos anos 1960, sugeria que a diferença no desempenho dos alunos estava relacionada a sua origem e condição socioeconômica, e não à diferença entre escolas. O relatório, encomendado pelo governo americano após a aprovação da Lei de Direitos Civis, se tornou um marco na área de educação. Já na década de 1970, estudiosos procuraram desfazer essa ideia de que a escola e o professor não faziam diferença. Essas pesquisas apontavam problemas metodológicos no relatório de Coleman e em outros semelhantes, afirmando que elas não consideravam, de início, a condição social dos alunos. Por isso, não conseguiam verificar o quanto a escola melhorava os resultados daquele aluno em relação ao que ele teria alcançado sem ela. Atualmente, a maior parte dos especialistas reconhece que a origem do aluno tem papel importante, mas afirma que o desempenho do professor e da escola também têm impacto. Ernesto Martins Faria, diretor do Iede, afirma que ensinar alunos com perfil socioeconômico baixo é mais desafiador. Para ele, porém, isso não pode significar que essas crianças aprendam menos. “A escola tem que compensar para que eles estejam em um nível semelhante a alunos em outra faixa de renda. Isso de fato é uma escola que promove oportunidades. Isso passa por melhores condições de trabalho, por ter mais recursos, e as críticas dos professores são legítimas. Mas a gente não pode ter menores expectativas em relação a esses alunos”, afirmou ao Nexo. Falta de protagonismo Para especialistas, as respostas dos professores indicam que eles não se veem em papel de protagonismo, dando mais importância a fatores externos como determinantes para o desempenho do aluno. “Esses dados são muito sérios porque nos colocam cada vez mais longe da solução do problema. Percebe-se a não profissionalização do professor. Quando ele não se reconhece como um profissional que faz a diferença, joga a responsabilidade na família, no aluno, na pobreza…” Pilar Lacerda Diretora da Fundação SM Brasil e ex-secretária de Educação Básica do MEC Guiomar Namo de Mello, diretora da Ebrap (Escola Brasileira de Professores), diz que o discurso é imobilizador. “A origem socioeconômica da criança não está no nosso controle, não faz parte da nossa governabilidade. Então eu preciso mexer na única variável sobre a qual tenho controle. Investir em formação, carreira, ingresso, educação continuada”, afirmou ao Nexo. Além desses problemas estruturais, ela vê ainda uma questão individual que prejudica o desempenho do aluno. “[Culpar fatores externos] é pegar a batata quente e jogar para frente. Mostra certo descompromisso [do professor], falta de engajamento no trabalho”, disse.  Já Francisco Soares, da UFMG e ex-presidente do Inep, afirma que os exemplos brasileiros de sucesso ocorrem no nível do sistema, e não do professor individualmente. “Não se constrói educação de qualidade com heroísmo, mas com processos pedagógicos seguidos rotineiramente”, afirmou ao Nexo. Ele discorda dos demais especialistas ao interpretar os dados do questionário. Para Soares, os dados não nos permitem dizer se os professores percebem que sua ação pode vencer as limitações escolares e sociais. O que fica claro, afirma, é que eles acreditam que há um impacto social grande. “Eu sei que muitos se escondem atrás disso. Mas onde os pobres aprendem é porque os professores mostram que sua ação é mais poderosa.” Possíveis soluções Para o Iede, é preciso trabalhar dois aspectos para que os docentes se sintam protagonistas no processo de aprendizado: autoeficácia e profissionalização da carreira. O primeiro termo se refere à necessidade de que o professor aumente suas expectativas em relação ao resultado das próprias ações, vendo que pode ter um impacto no aprendizado até dos alunos de baixa renda. O segundo aspecto se refere à formação e condições de trabalho. Dados do questionário Talis, da OCDE, indicam que os próprios professores reconhecem que precisam de mais formação. Análise do Iede mostra que, entre professores de 34 países (ou entidades subnacionais), os brasileiros foram os que mais disseram “precisar muito” de desenvolvimento profissional em quatro áreas, entre elas educação especial (60%) e ensino em ambiente multicultural (46%).

Link para matéria: https://www.nexojornal.com.br/expresso/2018/01/30/Professores-atribuem-fracasso-de-aluno-%C3%A0-origem-social.-O-que-isso-indica

© 2017 | Todos os direitos deste material são reservados ao NEXO JORNAL LTDA., conforme a Lei nº 9.610/98. A sua publicação, redistribuição, transmissão e reescrita sem autorização prévia é proibida.

What We Can Learn from Closure of [an All Girls] Charter School That DeVos Praised as ‘Shining Example’ (Claire Smrekar) by larrycuban

"Claire Smrekar is associate professor of public policy and education at Vanderbilt University. Smrekar earned her doctorate in Education Policy at Stanford University in 1991. She conducts qualitative research studies related to the social context of education and public policy, with specific focus on the impact of desegregation plans and choice policies on families, schools, and neighborhoods. She is currently studying the effects of private school markets and demographic trends on school voucher plans. Professor Smrekar’s work has been funded by the U.S. Department of Education, the Danforth Foundation, the Spencer Foundation, the W.T. Grant Foundation, and Peabody College. Smrekar is the author of numerous journal articles, book chapters, and reports. She is the author of three books: "The Impact of School Choice and Community: In the Interest of Families and Schools (1996)," State University of New York (SUNY) Press; "School Choice in Urban America: Magnet Schools and the Pursuit of Equity" (1999), Teachers College Press; and "From the Courtroom to the Classroom: The Shifting Landscape of School Desegregation" (2009), Harvard Education Press. Smrekar's research interests include the social context of education and the social organization of schools, with specific reference to family-school-community interactions in public, military-sponsored, non-public, and choice schools." This article appeared January 15, 2018 in The Conversation. When Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and first lady Melania Trump visited Excel Academy Public Charter School last spring, DeVos praised the school as a “shining example of a school meeting the needs of its students, parents and community.” Melania Trump called the charter school “an exceptional example of a school preparing young women both academically and personally so that they may succeed in a global community.” The visit made international headlines due to the fact that it also featured Queen Rania Al-Abdullah of Jordan. In terms of publicity, a school could not ask for a better platform. Unfortunately, we now know the praise the school got during its brief time on the world stage did not match its poor performance. On Jan. 11, the DC Public Charter School Board voted unanimously, 6-0, to shut downthe Pre-K-8, all-girls school at the end of the current school year. The board action wasn’t because of some sudden turn of events after Secretary DeVos, Melania Trump and Queen Raina paid their visit. Instead, records show, it was because the “trend for student performance over the past several years has been negative, despite any benefits that may have occurred from learning in an all-girl setting.” Excel Academy charter school now joins the 200 to 300 charter schools that are shut down each year across the nation due to poor performance, financial shortcomings and low enrollments. The Excel case magnifies how the cost of charter school failure is born by parents and their children, communities, educators and local residents. Indeed, many of the 700 or so girls who currently attend Excel must now scramble to find another school by next fall. The closure of Excel represents a prime opportunity to focus on what we know about school choice and to move the discussion beyond ideological and partisan debates. This is particularly crucial since between fall 2004 and fall 2014, overall public charter school enrollment increased from 900,000 to 2.7 million students. During this same period, the percentage of public school students who attended charter schools increased from 2 to 5 percent, and the percentage of all public schools that were charter schools increased from 4 to 7 percent. In addition to increasing in number, public charter schools have also generally increased in enrollment size over the last decade. In 2017, the number of students enrolled in charter schools surpassed 3 million nationwide and the number of charter schools reached 6,900. This past September, the U.S. Department of Education awarded US$253 million in grants through the Expanding Opportunity Through Quality Charter Schools Program to states and nonprofit charter management organizations. This level of funding is consistent with the level of federal support for charter schools in previous years. Given all these developments, there is no better time for an honest discussion about what the research shows about charter school performance. As the author of several books on school choice and a researcher who is currently examining the impact of choice policies on families, schools and neighborhoods, there are five points I would highlight that are based on the research on charter schools. The performance of charter schools as a whole varies widely. This is the most consistent finding across charter school evaluations. It serves to heighten the importance of continuous monitoring of how charters are authorized – and how they perform – as the number of charter schools continue to multiply across the nation. Similarly, the impact of charter middle schools on student achievement is a mixed bag based on various factors. In other words, you can’t say charter middle schools are better or worse than traditional public schools. It all depends. One studyexamined student performance in 36 charter middle schools across 15 states, and found that charter schools were “neither more nor less successful than traditional public schools in improving student achievement, behavior, and school progress.” The study also found that “charter schools serving more low income or low achieving students had statistically significant positive effects on math test scores, while charter schools serving more advantaged students – those with higher income and prior achievement – had significant negative effects on math test scores.” The first three years of charter schools predict academic performance, financial viability and sustainability. In other words, it’s pretty much do or die for new charter schools. This finding underscores the need to be proactive. It suggests charter authorizers should work with new charter schools at the start – actually, well before the doors open. The proactive approach stands in stark contrast to a “wait to fail” posture where a school lingers and lurches toward the final days of operation. Is this educational malpractice? Maybe so. The overall performance of charter schools has increased between 2009 and 2013. This increase was driven in part by the presence of more high-performing charters and the closure of low-performing charter schools. Thus, while the recent decision to close Excel may be unfortunate for its students, it might ultimately be good for the overall quality and performance of the public charter school sector as a whole. Students who attend charter high schools are more likely to graduate than students who attend traditional public high schools. They are also more likely go to college and earn a higher income. “Maximum annual earnings were approximately $2,300 higher for 23- to 25-year-olds who attended charter high schools versus conventional public schools across the state of Florida,” concluded one recent studyconducted by Vanderbilt University, Mathematica and Georgia State University. As new charter schools continue to open at a rapid pace while others are shut down, charter school operators and supporters should pay close attention to what took place at Excel, which first opened its doors in 2008. This is particularly true for new charter schools that may be struggling academically. Darren Woodruff, chair of the DC Public Charter School Board, explained how many of the steps that Excel planned to take to turn things around were too little too late. In a written statement, Woodruff said Excel’s recent changes – including the planned addition of a chief academic officer and a school turnaround plan – all represent “welcome steps that ideally would have been implemented when the first indications of decreased student performance became evident.” “However,” Woodruff said, “without these steps more fully in place and clear data on their impact, this Board lacks convincing evidence that Excel represents the best opportunity for these young girls that we all care so much about.” The lesson for charter school leaders and advocates is that these kinds of things need to be in place on day one. This is especially important since the research shows the first three years of a charter school are so crucial. larrycuban | January 31, 2018

The Dilemma of Preschools in the U.S., Larry Cuban

Jannuary 28, 2018

I have yet to meet anyone publicly opposed to increasing the number of  three and four year olds going to preschool. Most parents, policymakers, and researchers broadcast the pluses of this early childhood experience and some call for universal prekindergarten as now exist in New York City, Oklahoma and other states and districts (for an exception, see Bruce Fuller’s Standardized Childhood).

Sure, the reasons given range from the adult dividends that these four-year olds will accrue in high school and adulthood, reducing economic inequality, and giving working mothers and low-income families child care and job opportunities. While there are naysayers when it comes to these future outcomes, expanding high quality child care and education to young children is seldom questioned (see here and here).

Given there is near unanimity on the importance of pre-kindergarten, many states have mandated preschooling and many districts have incorporated these children into the system (and paid far higher salaries to credentialed teachers). Still only 40 percent of eligible pre-kindergartners have access to publically funded preschool. The rest are in private, for-profit settings and home care. Compare that to other nations.

The OECD made up of 35 economically developed nations in Europe, North America, and Asia ranked access to government financed preschools in 2015. For three- and four year-olds, the U.S. came in toward the bottom of the distribution.

When U.S. students score in the middle or bottom of rankings of results on international tests, mainstream media pays close attention to where the nation ranks. Not so for such rankings as these.

Rhetorical support for preschools in U.S. is way ahead of actions in enrolling prekindergartners across the 50 states as it is on the credentials and salaries of teachers who daily educate their young charges both in public and private preschools.

Consider the core dilemma that few members of education policy elites want to talk about much less tackle: with near unanimity on the importance of preschool to individual children, their parents, and society, those who teach preschoolers outside of public schools (predominately female) are paid just above the poverty level.

The facts are worrisome:

* Average annual preschool teacher salary in 2016 was just below $29,000. Poverty level established by U.S. government for a family of four in 2017 is nearly $25,000.

*Preschool teachers in school districts who have teaching credentials earn as much as elementary teachers, $55,000 (2016)

So what the U.S. faces is near unanimity on the economic and social importance of preschool experiences with noticeable shortcomings on, first, providing equitable access to all three and four year-olds as a nation and among the states, and, second, paying a workforce that is (97 percent female of whom most are low-income women of color with a high school diploma ) just above the poverty level.

Obviously increased spending for expanded preschool and teacher salaries has been and is a major stumbling block. Yet historical trends in expanding access to tax-supported schooling in the U.S. and rising teacher salaries offer a splinter of hope to those who take the long-term view.

First, adding new populations to public schooling has occurred time and again. Recall that kindergartens were late-19th century middle-class women’s private efforts to educate five and six year olds before they entered elementary school. Those model kindergartens were slowly integrated into public schools beginning in the 1880s and by the 1950s had become K-12 age-graded schools (see here).

A similar pattern is occurring with preschools albeit in a more accelerated fashion. Publicly-funded prekindergarten classes have been authorized by many states and exist in scattered big cities across the nation (see here and here). How soon, I cannot say, but I do see pre-K becoming integrated into nearly all public schools across the U.S.

As for the huge disparity in salaries for non-credentialed preschool teachers and those preschool teachers who work in public school systems with licenses to teach, that, too, I believe will move, again slowly, to narrow the salary differential that now exists. Preschool teachers getting associate and bachelor degrees in early childhood education through a growing array of online and on-site universities will increase, again slowly since the cost of taking courses and earning credentials remain prohibitive to single and working mothers who are a major proportion of those who staff preschools.

So the long-term view I offer here is optimistic as to the dilemma I see facing preschools in the U.S. But the long-term means years, even a few decades which is of little comfort to those who earn near-poverty level salaries and have to choose between providing essentials for their families and finding money to finance their quest for a teaching credential.

The gap between rhetoric and action when it comes to preschooling in the U.S. remains large.

How China Used Schools to Win Over Hanoi

Chinese militia members pledged support for Vietnam in its war against the United States in 1966. CreditBettmann/Getty Images  The New York Times

In December 1966, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, or North Vietnam, and the People’s Republic of China signed an agreement to establish schools for North Vietnamese children in China, with China providing the facilities, funds and equipment. America’s bombing campaign over North Vietnam was in high gear, and Hanoi wanted to move its students to a safe place.

What is truly remarkable about this cross-border educational effort was that it began in the midst of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, which started in May 1966 and destroyed the Chinese educational system (and left the Chinese economy in shambles). But the Chinese were willing to carve out space for the North Vietnamese because doing so served a higher, geopolitical purpose: competing with the Soviet Union for leadership of the global communist movement.

The Chinese program, known as Project 92, covered school construction and teaching equipment, as well as funds for daily expenses (the “92” refers to Sept. 2, 1945, the day Vietnam declared independence from France). One facility, the School of Sept. 2, was established specifically for children who had been relocated from South Vietnam. Another school, for military cadets, bore the name of Nguyen Van Troi, a young Saigonese who in May 1963 attempted to assassinate the American defense secretary, Robert McNamara, during his visit to South Vietnam, and who was executed by firing squad. Because the Chinese military was less affected by the Cultural Revolution than its civilian educational system, the military led the construction efforts.

The schools were more than just basic educational facilities; their goal was to create, in a safe location, “an advanced socialist school” to train the next generation of Vietnamese. They were to instill revolutionary morality and the socialist spirit. And pupils were to become willing and enthusiastic fighters when their time came to join the army. Teachers had to teach the Five Precepts of Uncle Ho, and they had to inculcate the North Vietnamese agenda, to make sure the children understood that it was because of the American enemy that their country was divided into two, that their families were broken and that their homeland was being destroyed. In short, the objective was for the children to be eager for the government to call them up to fight the Americans.

In December 1967, three schools were united into the Vietnamese Southern School District, and the new system was effectively inaugurated. Most of the construction was finished by August 1968, and both sides met to discuss future cooperation, especially the need to strengthen the political education of the pupils, combining theory and practice and incorporating an exchange of experiences gained during the Cultural Revolution in China and the anti-American war in Vietnam. It was also decided that when the Vietnamese returned, they could take with them all the teaching equipment as well as weapons (no weapons were mentioned in the previous agreements).

Continue reading the main story

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story

The system included seven schools with more than 2,000 pupils, cadres and teachers. Many of the pupils were children of cadres and party members killed during the wars against the French and the Americans. Pupils were brought from different areas of Vietnam, from the South as well as from the North. They reportedly represented around 30 nationalities, although the nationalities were not specified. They arrived at different times, they had different levels of education and they were different ages.

Newsletter Sign Up

Continue reading the main story

The program had its shortcomings, though. The schools were concentrated on a limited piece of land (less than a square kilometer) that lacked sufficient classroom space, as well as sufficient space for housing, outside activities, production or social activities. Moreover, despite their political pedigrees, the students came with a frustratingly broad range of political convictions. One group followed the Hanoi line. This group was “in the care of the Party and of Uncle and that’s why they had hatred toward the Americans and their lackeys” — in other words, South Vietnamese anti-communists — “who sell the country.” Pupils in this group were “connected to socialism, felt absolute trust in Uncle Ho, and in the Workers Party of Vietnam.” On the other side of the spectrum, there were pupils who had experienced, in one report, the “putrid American influence” and who lacked discipline, a sense of national identity and love for the nation.

In addition to these difficulties, there was a shortage of teachers, and those who were there, according to an assessment by the North Vietnamese Ministry of Education, had very low educational levels. Many teachers wanted to return home. Many of them did not have revolutionary morale and thus made serious mistakes, such as illicit liaisons among male and female cadres and violations of the principles of socialist education, like hitting or harshly disciplining students.

Administrators were a problem, too. Many of them were still “under the old conventions and backward concepts,” according to one analysis, that superseded revolutionary notions of friendship, love and service. Their bad attitudes, according to the Ministry of Education, prevailed over their commitments to the party and its youth organizations. Material problems aggravated ideological difficulties. Living quarters were overcrowded and did not meet hygienic requirements. Classrooms were not sufficiently equipped. Sometimes children of very different ages had to study together. Teaching materials arrived slowly.

China had three main considerations in hosting an extension of the Vietnamese educational system. First was solidarity with a protégé. That feeling arose from the close alliance between the Chinese and Vietnamese communists during the war against France, when the Chinese provided the means for continuing the war and the Vietnamese responded with gratitude and emulation. Chinese communists saw the achievements of the Vietnamese communists as an extension of their own revolutionary agenda.

Second was competition with the Soviet Union for leadership of the international communist movement and for influence in what were then called “third world” countries, which included Vietnam. The Sino-Soviet competition developed in the late 1950s and continued through the 1960s. Giving their Vietnamese allies a safe haven for schools just across the border was something that the Soviet Union was not in a position to provide to the Vietnamese, and this created a venue for nurturing both practical assistance and a spirit of sympathetic patronage.

Finally, the program offered an opportunity to support a war that kept the United States militarily occupied beyond China’s borders — rendering America less of a threat to China itself.

Despite its difficulties, the system persevered until mid-1975, when it was terminated and all students, teachers and administrators returned to Vietnam. By 1975, North Vietnam was on the verge of conquering the south, and the need for educational facilities that were out of harm’s way was lessening. But Sino-Vietnamese relations were souring as well. Hanoi’s final push toward Saigon was fueled by Soviet assistance, and the consolidation of communist rule across Vietnam turned an ally of China into a threat. While it is possible that when Vietnam and China went to war in 1978 there were some Vietnamese soldiers who had once studied on Chinese soil, there are nevertheless many who continue to cherish their study years in China.

Olga Dror is an associate professor of history at Texas A&M University and the author of the forthcoming book “Making Two Vietnams: War and Youth Identity, 1965-75.” This article draws on material that will appear in an essay in the spring 2018 issue of the Journal of Cold War Studies.

5 Risks Posed by the Increasing Misuse of Technology in Schools (Diane Ravitch) by larrycuban

  “Diane Ravitch is a Research Professor of Education at New York University and a historian of education. She is the Founder and President of the Network for Public Education (NPE) and blogs at dianeravitch.net.”

This appeared in EdSurge, December 29, 2017

At any given moment in the day, I am attached to my cellphone, my iPad or my computer. As a writer, I was an early convert to the computer. I began writing on a TRS-80 from Radio Shack in 1983 on wonderful writing software called WordPerfect, which has mysteriously disappeared. I had two TRS-80s, because one of them was always in repair. I love the computer for many reasons. I no longer had to white out my errors; I no longer had to retype an entire article because of errors. My handwriting is almost completely illegible. The computer is a godsend for a writer and editor.

I have seen teachers who use technology to inspire inquiry, research, creativity and excitement. I understand what a powerful tool it is.

But it is also fraught with risk, and the tech industry has not done enough to mitigate the risks.

Risk One: The Threat to Student Privacy

Risk one is the invasion of student privacy, utilizing data by tech companies collected when students are online. The story of inBloom is a cautionary tale. Funded in 2014 with $100 million from the Gates Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation, inBloom intended to collect massive amounts of personally identifiable student data and use it to “personalize” learning to each student.

Parents became alarmed by the plan to put their children’s data into a cloud and mobilized in communities and states to stop inBloom. They were not nearly as impressed by the possibilities of data-driven instruction as the entrepreneurs promoting inBloom. The parents won. State after state dropped out, and inBloom collapsed.

Though inBloom is dead, the threat to student privacy is not. Every time a student makes a keystroke, an algorithm somewhere is collecting information about that student. Will his or her data be sold? The benefit to entrepreneurs and corporations is clear; the benefit to students is not at all clear.

Risk Two: The Proliferation of 'Personalized Learning'

Personalized learning, or “competency-based education,” are both euphemisms for computer adaptive instruction. Again, a parent rebellion is brewing, because parents want their children taught by a human being, not a computer. They fear that their children will be mechanized, standardized, subjected to depersonalized instruction, not “personalized learning.” While many entrepreneurs are investing in software to capture this burgeoning industry, there is still no solid evidence that students learn more or better when taught by a computer.

Risk Three: The Extensive Use of Technology for Assessment.

Technology is highly compatible with standardized testing, which encourages standardized questions and standardized answers. If the goal of learning is to teach creativity, imagination, and risk-taking, assessment should encourage students to be critical thinkers, not accepting the conventional wisdom, not checking off the right answer. Furthermore, the ability of computers to judge essays is still undeveloped and may remain so. Professor Les Perelman at MIT demonstrated that computer-graded essays can get high scores for gibberish and that computers lack the “intelligence” to reason or understand what matters most in writing.

Risk four: The Cyber Charter School

Most such virtual schools, or cyber charters, are operated for profit; the largest of them is a chain called K12 Inc., which is listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Its executives are paid millions of dollars each year. Its biggest initial investor was the junk bond king Michael Milken. Numerous articles in publications such as the New York Times and the Washington Post have documented high student attrition, low teacher wages, low student test scores and low graduation rates. Yet the company is profitable.

The most controversial school in Ohio is the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow (ECOT), whose owner makes political contributions to office-holders and has collected about $1 billion in taxpayer dollars since 2000. ECOT reputedly has the lowest graduation rate in the nation. The state of Ohio recently won a lawsuit requiring ECOT to return $60 million because of inflated enrollment figures. Studies of cyber charters have concluded that students learn very little when enrolled in them. There may be students who have legitimate reasons to learn at home online, but these “schools” should not receive the same tuition as brick-and-mortar schools that have certified teachers, custodians, libraries, the costs of physical maintenance, playgrounds, teams, school nurses and other necessities.

Risk Five: Money in Edtech

The tech industry wields its money in dubious ways to peddle its product. The market for technology is burgeoning, and a large industry is hovering around the schools, eager for their business. In November 2017, the New York Times published an expose of the business practices of the tech industry in Baltimore County. It documented payola, influence peddling and expensive wining and dining of school officials, which resulted in nearly $300 million of spending on computers that received low ratings by evaluators and that were soon obsolescent. This, in a district that has neglected the basic maintenance of some of its buildings.

The greatest fear of parents and teachers is that the tech industry wants to replace teachers with computers. They fear that the business leaders want to cut costs by replacing expensive humans with inexpensive machines, that never require health care or a pension. They believe that education requires human interaction. They prefer experience, wisdom, judgment, sensibility, sensitivity and compassion in the classroom to the cold, static excellence of a machine.

I agree with them.

larrycuban | January 5, 2018

É a educação, gente!, Cristovam Buarque

ARTIGO PUBLICADO NO JORNAL CORREIO BRAZILIENSE, EM 02/01/2018
Senador pelo PPS-DF e professor emérito da Universidade de Brasília (UnB), Cristovam Buarque Quase sempre a permanência de um problema está no entendimento equivocado de suas causas. A pobreza e a concentração da renda continuam, apesar do crescimento econômico, porque é um erro entendê-las como problemas da economia, que seriam superadas pelo aumento da produção e do rendimento. Ao longo do século 20, o Brasil foi um dos países que mais se desenvolveram, mas a renda se manteve concentrada e o país continua campeão em desigualdade social. Erramos no enfrentamento da questão, ao esperarmos que esse problema seria resolvido pelos economistas e empresários. Essa não seria uma realidade hoje se antes ela tivesse sida enfrentada pelos educadores e políticos, usando a escola, não as fábricas, como vetor da distribuição de renda. Ela não decorre de seu aumento, mas da distribuição da educação entre todos; para que todos tenham acesso aos empregos e às atividades que propiciam a renda. Sem distribuição de educação, não há distribuição de renda, porque sem educação o trabalho livre é uma ilusão, mantendo-se, portanto, a estrutura distributiva característica de sistemas servis. Por mais que o crescimento econômico levasse ao aumento da renda social, ela não seria distribuída para os escravos. O trabalhador pobre, mesmo livre da escravidão, continua incapaz de se inserir no mercado de trabalho porque, para isso, ele depende da educação a que não teve acesso. Entretanto, se a educação fosse bem distribuída, como em Cuba, Coreia do Norte, Alemanha Oriental, o problema da concentração se resolveria, mas todos ficariam condenados à pobreza. A frase “é preciso fazer o bolo antes de distribuí-lo” não funciona no Brasil; assim como também não funciona a frase “a distribuição antecipada faz o bolo”. Erramos ao acreditarmos que a economia colocaria um fim à pobreza social. Ao longo do século 20, conseguimos crescer ao ponto de nos tornarmos o sexto maior PIB do mundo, mas continuamos pobres, na 98ª posição mundial em renda per capita, porque nossa produtividade está em 78º lugar no ranking. A renda social cresceu com a população, não com a capacidade de cada brasileiro de produzir. Enfrentamos o fim da pobreza pela economia e não pela formação de mão de obra qualificada. Com isso, a pobreza se manteve. Ao lado da baixa produtividade, não crescemos mais por causa da enorme preferência nacional pelo consumo imediato e pela baixa propensão nacional à poupança, o que impede investimentos que dinamizariam a produção. Nós, economistas, fracassamos por não levarmos em conta que o problema não decorre da economia, mas da mentalidade nacional, da consciência, da educação que forma o individualismo, o consumismo, o corporativismo. A pobreza, a concentração de renda, as visões imediatistas, consumistas e individualistas, sem um sentimento coletivo de nação, levariam quase que fatalmente ao maior de nossos problemas: a brutal violência que caracteriza a sociedade atual. Mais uma vez, por erro de foco, enfrentamos a violência como uma questão de polícia, não de escola. Décadas atrás, nossos educacionistas, especialmente Darcy Ribeiro, alertaram para o fato de que o problema da violência não seria enfrentado corretamente enquanto fosse tratado apenas como uma questão de polícia. A violência, assim como a pobreza e a concentração de renda, é uma questão de impunidade, mas é, sobretudo, a educação que reduz a desigualdade e forma uma sociedade civilizada e pacífica. A corrupção está, finalmente, sendo enfrentada por juízes, policiais, promotores e procuradores, mas não será vencida enquanto não for enfrentada pelos eleitores. O juiz consegue prender político corrupto, mas não elege político honesto. Isso só vai acontecer quando o eleitor for educado: primeiro, para não precisar sobreviver das promessas dos candidatos e dos favores de eleitos; segundo, para discernir as diferenças entre os candidatos. A educação de um indivíduo não o faz mais honesto, mas a educação de todos os indivíduos faz um povo mais preparado para eleger pessoas decentes e sem demagogias, e com melhores e mais sérias promessas para o futuro. Há décadas tentamos garantir competitividade sem produtividade, usando subsídios, isenções fiscais e protecionismos. Na economia moderna, a competitividade só vem da produtividade e da inovação, que dependem da ciência e da tecnologia. Essas, por sua vez, dependem diretamente da educação de base.