Join the conversation

Why do teachers alone have to motivate students when so many parents don't? Sometimes it seems like we're up against everybody, every commercial selling kids some trash on TV, every parent who undermines our work with children, every politician who says schooling is only for getting a good job. That can burn you out after a while.

And Daniel Roth stretches his definition of "geek" pretty thin. Now it seems that any child who actually cares about his studies is a "geek." In my day, that kind of person was called a "student."

Great post. I was also especially appreciative of Roth's analysis of how tech "salespeople" oversell--and I include in that category those who are writing books hyping the positive "disruptions" of technology in schools while failing to look at the back side: student resistance, of course, but also the unsolved problem of the have/have-not tech divide, which is expanding rather than contracting.

As a band teacher, I totally get the cultural norms that develop in secondary schools. I spent 30 years trying to get my student musicians to build their own band geek communities, with considerable success. But I think Roth underestimates the existing strength of geek chic, in mainstream schools. People who think that jocks rule, and geeks are the latter-day equivalent of the audio-visual club haven't been paying attention.

Thanks for your thoughtful comment, Nancy. It's heartening to hear that the geeks are in the ascendant in many schools. Kudos to you for helping build that community!

I guess I would have to agree with Anonymous (above) about the problems with Roth's definition of geekdom. He sets the barrier to entry to very low--apparently, geeks are kids who pay attention, do their homework and actually enjoy some academic pursuits. I always thought geeks were the kids who did all of that and then some--who let their enthusiasms for intellectual and/or technical pursuits far outrun their desire for community acceptance. If we accept Roth's definition, then community resistance to study must be worse than we thought.

Also, I should clarify that I think technology really does have the power to disrupt old habits in positive ways--and that many technologies can engage students in very novel ways with very challenging and rich content. I worry that the "disrupting class" folks take that vision and turn it into a fetish, which might actually undermine the goals the espouse.

I completely agree...

with your contention that technologies will transform old educational habits. Technologies have always pushed educational theorizing aside and captured aspects of schooling practice-- and Americans are particularly prone to believing that technology solves problems, without considering the corresponding problems it creates. I'm old enough to remember when B&W TV was going to replace the classroom teacher-- and it's worth considering that things we take for granted, like grouping children by age, or the report card, were once exciting new technologies. In fact, I would argue that the *only* thing compelling enough to transform America's nostalgic beliefs about education are rapidly emerging technologies.

It's the starry-eyed sales job--technology will make things better!-- and the reluctance to carefully consider what's worth preserving that scares me. I've seen technology promoters begin their presentations by critiquing the present system (easy to do): problems with classroom management (duh! put 30 teenagers in a room and YOU keep 'em enthralled)? Problems with different skill levels (that's universal)? Problems with the system "costing too much?" Then-- presto!-- enter on-line learning, and all of these are solved. Well, no.

When using "disruptive" technologies, things do change. Some goals are more easily achieved. Some things get worse, or more complicated. Ironically, it's the geeky kids who will get shortchanged-- the editor of the creative writing magazine whose life centers around drinking illicit Starbucks with the 15 other kids all learning to identify and love good writing, the drama club geek (you can't do drama club on-line) whose life centers around spending four hours after school entering another life, the performing arts groups, which might become a pay-for option.

Detroit Public Schools currently list 53 high schools and middle schools, only 9 of which have been able to save instrumental music programs. When it becomes cheaper and more efficient to deliver instruction to kids on-line, the few remaining "frills" like the arts will be gone forever in stressed systems. That's what I mean by the differences between haves and have-nots--access to hardware doesn't even begin to cover the disrupting-class aspects of delivering more schooling on-line. Providing a laptop is a whole lot cheaper than working with troubled, high-needs kids f2f. We may be disrupting some classes, but we could be strengthening societal class divisions.

All I'm saying is that it's worth thinking about these aspects, and adopt new technologies thoughtfully and deliberately.

As for Roth's low bar-- kids become geeks because someone shows them that geekdom is rewarding. Often, that someone is an adult, who hooks them on intellectual pursuits, shows them how rewarding a "life of the mind" (as defined by HS kids) can be. Schools where geeks reign, or have a substantial presence, are schools full of attractive, geek-sticky programs and role models.

Nancy, your comments are always brilliant and engaging--much better than the blog entries themselves.

I'm with you about the need to temper the technology sales job. I'm particularly worried by technologies that promise to do things better and cheaper. Too often, we become so enthralled by the new that we forget to honor some pretty fundamental principles of public education. (I think the Center on Education Policy produced a document some years ago about the essential values of public education that would have to survive any changes wrought by technology--interesting stuff.)

I was particularly taken by our concern about the dangers to performing arts, studio arts, and other important activities that create those places where geeks gather together and gain strength. I do think, however, that responsible technology advocates do generally leave ample room for many of the low-tech inspiration for geeks. The danger arises when claims of technology's efficiency dovetail with claims that face-to-face interaction, contact with actual musical instruments, performance in real-time, etc. are all vestiges of an obsolete way of life honored only by obsolete people. Again, I think there are a lot of technology advocates out there who don't subscribe to technological disruption in the worst sense.

It seems to me that technology also creates a lot of new spaces where geeks can flourish. The can pursue enthusiasms on line, have access to wonderful open-source academic materials and lectures, join international communities of people who share their obscure enthusiasms, learn through serious games (though such games are still scarce), and so on. Educators can tap in to this stuff to wonderful effect.

Still, I agree with you that technology should not be used as an excuse to back off from essential principles of public education, even where they demand unglamorous work and investment.