"I used to think that technology could help education. I've probably spearheaded giving away more computer equipment to schools than anybody else on the planet. But I've had to come to the inevitable conclusion that the problem is not one that technology can hope to solve. What's wrong with education cannot be fixed with technology. No amount of technology will make a dent.
It's a political problem. The problems are sociopolitical. The problems are unions. You plot the growth of the NEA [National Education Association] and the dropping of SAT scores, and they're inversely proportional. The problems are unions in the schools. The problem is bureaucracy. I'm one of these people who believes the best thing we could ever do is go to the full voucher system.
I have a 17-year-old daughter who went to a private school for a few years before high school. This private school is the best school I've seen in my life. It was judged one of the 100 best schools in America. It was phenomenal. The tuition was $5,500 a year, which is a lot of money for most parents. But the teachers were paid less than public school teachers - so it's not about money at the teacher level. I asked the state treasurer that year what California pays on average to send kids to school, and I believe it was $4,400. While there are not many parents who could come up with $5,500 a year, there are many who could come up with $1,000 a year.
If we gave vouchers to parents for $4,400 a year, schools would be starting right and left. People would get out of college and say, "Let's start a school." You could have a track at Stanford within the MBA program on how to be the businessperson of a school. And that MBA would get together with somebody else, and they'd start schools. And you'd have these young, idealistic people starting schools, working for pennies.
They'd do it because they'd be able to set the curriculum. When you have kids you think, What exactly do I want them to learn? Most of the stuff they study in school is completely useless. But some incredibly valuable things you don't learn until you're older - yet you could learn them when you're younger. And you start to think, What would I do if I set a curriculum for a school?
God, how exciting that could be! But you can't do it today. You'd be crazy to work in a school today. You don't get to do what you want. You don't get to pick your books, your curriculum. You get to teach one narrow specialization. Who would ever want to do that?
These are the solutions to our problems in education. Unfortunately, technology isn't it. You're not going to solve the problems by putting all knowledge onto CD-ROMs. We can put a Web site in every school - none of this is bad. It's bad only if it lulls us into thinking we're doing something to solve the problem with education.
Lincoln did not have a Web site at the log cabin where his parents home-schooled him, and he turned out pretty interesting. Historical precedent shows that we can turn out amazing human beings without technology. Precedent also shows that we can turn out very uninteresting human beings with technology.
It's not as simple as you think when you're in your 20s - that technology's going to change the world. In some ways it will, in some ways it won't." [1]
Incidentally, the incoming governor of Florida is talking about putting in a full voucher program in the form of broader "education savings accounts" which also work for college savings and such.
The response from the education establishment and intertwined media is predictable (http://news.google.com/news/story?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us...): FUD about its effect on public education. Unfortunately the establishment is too concerned about keeping their own jobs to consider the importance of choice to developing the future of online education systems - which will improve outcomes and potentially dramatically reduce costs as well.
Florida could well be the voucher battleground for 2011, so if you're interested you perhaps should consider getting involved.
The comparison of private school tuition to public school costs has been debunked long ago. It's apples to oranges. Private schools can get rid of their problem cases, public schools can't (and problem cases can take up a huge amount of teacher time). Private schools can cherry pick the best students, public schools can't. Private school parents, simply by the fact that they sought out an alternative (selection bias) are often more involved in their kids' education. They also often donate substantial amounts of time and resources over and above tuition, which never shows up in the books but represents a real resource.
Jobs blames the unions, but what he misses is that the union didn't get that way all on its own. The union's job is to defend the interests of its teachers, and teachers have been given a pretty bad deal over the last 50 years. Falling pay, additional responsibilities, decreased autonomy/creativity and administrators who are all too willing to throw them under the bus at the slightest parent complaint. The union preceives rightly that its constituency is under siege, and becomes obstructionist accordingly.
The studies I've seen of voucher schools -- at least the ones that weren't financed by voucher advocates or businesses -- have shown that once voucher schools have to operate under the conditions that publich schools face, the results are statistically indistinguishable.
>I have a 17-year-old daughter who went to a private school...It was judged one of the 100 best schools in America. It was phenomenal. The tuition was $5,500 a year, which is a lot of money for most parents. But the teachers were paid less than public school teachers - so it's not about money at the teacher level.
In response to Steve Jobs:
I agree, quality of education isn't necessarily about pay at the teacher level, but this isn't the best argument about why. The students attending this school necessarily have parents who put a high priority on education; at the very least, they are willing to pay $5,500 to a top 100 school. I think those parents are making a huge impact. If you move that exact same school with those exact same teachers into a less affluent environment with a $150 tuition I don't think you would see the same phenomenal results.
I work at a small private school that focuses on good teachers, strong community, and an intellectually demanding curriculum. Although we use technology where it makes sense for us (Moodle, classroom projector computers, computer lab), but we are low-tech compared to our competition in the area. In my opinion, we provide a better education than they do, and we are definitely less expensive that the other top-tier private schools in the area.
My conclusion is that although technology can be very helpful, it is not the key to a good education. The key is having well-trained, dedicated teachers who care about the students, working in an environment where they have the freedom to actually do their job. That's what we have here, and I wouldn't trade it for a job at most other schools for twice the pay.
Actually, one of the more interesting policy pledges of the new UK government was something like you described, apparently inspired by the Swedish system of "free schools".
The idea was to let parents (or whoever) establish their own schools, and be eligible for public funding based on how many students they enrolled. It was the flagship policy of the Conservative Party's 'Big Society' initiative, something that was criticised a lot both by the right (because they didn't like it) and the left (because they didn't believe the Tories were serious about it). It wasn't mentioned much during the election campaigns since the debate was about austerity and the mood was too grim, and I don't know if anything has happened about it, but I thought it sounded like a good idea.
One problem we're seeing is Sweden at least is that it turns out that offering world class education is simply not a cost effective way to attract lots of students. Offering free laptops, no homework, lots of high tech gadget for students to play with and free trips to Spain turns out to be a far more effective way to attract customers.
At the end of the day most of their potential customers aren't that interested in education, and as such it doesn't make financial sense to spend too much on that aspect of the business.
I bet you're right that a lot of parents aren't all that interested in the quality of education their children get, as such. But ...
If you say your school offers world-class education, parents have no reliable way of telling whether that's true. If it isn't true and they send their child to your school, they still have no reliable way of telling; in particular, they will have a lot of trouble convincing a court that your description of the school was dishonest.
On the other hand, if you say your school has free laptops, no homework, lots of high-tech gadgets, and free trips to Spain, parents can check that pretty easily and get you into legal trouble if it isn't true but you said it was.
If parents care more about things they can actually check, that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't interested in education. They may just be realistic about what they can trust educators to do.
It isn't so much that parents aren't interested in the quality of the eduction, as much as the annoying fact that teenagers have wills of their own. You make it sound like the parents are the target customers for these schools, but based on how the schools target their advertising they realize that their target customers are very much the kids.
Now admittedly I don't have teenage kids, but from what I hear I imagine it is non-trivial to tell them that they can't go to the school they have their heart set on and instead must go to a school they don't want to go to at all. And even if the parent does win that particular battle of wills, I image that the kids motivation will have taken quite a beating. I suppose at the end of the day most parents reason that it's better to send their kids to a bad school they are enthusiastic about rather than a good school they don't want to go to.
I agree it sounds like a fun education, I'm not quite convinced about the 'good' bit. I guess it depends on what you want out of high school. Faffing about in a professionally equipped TV and recording studio and getting drunk in Spain for a week are certainly both educational in some sense, but it's hardly what I'd call well rounded.
Then again I suppose anything that makes kids excited about high school is probably a good thing, even if it means sacrificing the academic side of things. A 'bad' education that you enjoy is probably more rewarding than a 'good' education you hate.
I'd say 1 week a year of partying doesn't immediately ruin your roundedness. But yes, some faffing may make kids more excited about making TV shows than they are about latin grammar.
He made some good points, but even a visionary like Jobs missed how his prediction of networked computers would help improve education. Once again, I point to the Khan Academy.
If all Salman Khan had was a log cabin, he would have probably still taught because it's his passion. But he would only touch the lives of a few hundred at most, not millions.
The same applies for the top universities making their content available for free online. Do people really not see what it means to students outside America and Europe?
With age, even Jobs got jaded and forgot his own golden words: STAY HUNGRY, STAY FOOLISH.
I see Khan Academy as disruptive technology and not apart of the education system. In fact I use Khan in homeschooling. But the real issue that is stifling eduction is the current eduction system.
I'm really excited about the prospects of Khan Academy (and similar tools). Technology has the potential to give students access to the best teachers in the world. I for one would rather have my kids watch on television lectures by phenomenal professors who are engaging, passionate, and great communicators and have their in-class teachers serve more as TA's to help fill in the learning gaps.
My girlfriend, who is a teacher, doesnt believe this is a very productive technique however.
I'm not a fan of publicly-funded medicine, but I just had a thought as I read this. What if instead of one-size-fits-all socialized medicine, the US tried a hybrid approach that involved "medical vouchers." You pick the doc, the treatment, etc. You have $x to spend. You shop.
Seems like if this was done right it would increase competition and lead to better outcomes.
I don't see how you could call him prescient when he was talking about conditions as they existed at the time of his comments. The fact that they apply just as well today simply means that conditions haven't changed much.
Yeah; but it was mostly because here he was having made the assessment that three current documentaries are finally coming around to making more than 20 years after.
Anyone know what school he is talking about? When did this article come out? $5500/year sounds like a good deal. I've seen private schools for the rich and famous, like Dalton, that charge $35,000 a year for K-12.
Steve Jobs had done pretty well with the "young, idealist people working for [relatively] pennies" model. But is there no value to experience in the teaching profession?
There is absolutely value. But that value is currently minimized with the current system. Jobs may be talking about young idealistic people starting schools, but he says nothing to imply that you wouldn't want experienced, motivated teachers at those schools doing the actual teaching. It's like a business person starting a tech startup and getting the best developers he/she can find. I think the same strategy would apply here. Experienced teachers would certainly increase the likelihood of success, as long as those teachers also had an open mind and were willing to do things differently than they were used to.
perhaps the problem IS the SAT system. I have a high IQ, and I can't for the life of me understand why the US uses SAT's which are so similar to IQ tests. In Australia, the HSC required me to work, and people less smart than me who worked harder beat me.
The SAT's on the otherhand, encourage a feeling of "giftedness" and unwillingness to take risks. If I had to just deal with the SAT's I would be lazier than I already am!
"I used to think that technology could help education. I've probably spearheaded giving away more computer equipment to schools than anybody else on the planet. But I've had to come to the inevitable conclusion that the problem is not one that technology can hope to solve. What's wrong with education cannot be fixed with technology. No amount of technology will make a dent.
It's a political problem. The problems are sociopolitical. The problems are unions. You plot the growth of the NEA [National Education Association] and the dropping of SAT scores, and they're inversely proportional. The problems are unions in the schools. The problem is bureaucracy. I'm one of these people who believes the best thing we could ever do is go to the full voucher system.
I have a 17-year-old daughter who went to a private school for a few years before high school. This private school is the best school I've seen in my life. It was judged one of the 100 best schools in America. It was phenomenal. The tuition was $5,500 a year, which is a lot of money for most parents. But the teachers were paid less than public school teachers - so it's not about money at the teacher level. I asked the state treasurer that year what California pays on average to send kids to school, and I believe it was $4,400. While there are not many parents who could come up with $5,500 a year, there are many who could come up with $1,000 a year.
If we gave vouchers to parents for $4,400 a year, schools would be starting right and left. People would get out of college and say, "Let's start a school." You could have a track at Stanford within the MBA program on how to be the businessperson of a school. And that MBA would get together with somebody else, and they'd start schools. And you'd have these young, idealistic people starting schools, working for pennies.
They'd do it because they'd be able to set the curriculum. When you have kids you think, What exactly do I want them to learn? Most of the stuff they study in school is completely useless. But some incredibly valuable things you don't learn until you're older - yet you could learn them when you're younger. And you start to think, What would I do if I set a curriculum for a school?
God, how exciting that could be! But you can't do it today. You'd be crazy to work in a school today. You don't get to do what you want. You don't get to pick your books, your curriculum. You get to teach one narrow specialization. Who would ever want to do that?
These are the solutions to our problems in education. Unfortunately, technology isn't it. You're not going to solve the problems by putting all knowledge onto CD-ROMs. We can put a Web site in every school - none of this is bad. It's bad only if it lulls us into thinking we're doing something to solve the problem with education.
Lincoln did not have a Web site at the log cabin where his parents home-schooled him, and he turned out pretty interesting. Historical precedent shows that we can turn out amazing human beings without technology. Precedent also shows that we can turn out very uninteresting human beings with technology.
It's not as simple as you think when you're in your 20s - that technology's going to change the world. In some ways it will, in some ways it won't." [1]
----
[1]: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.02/jobs_pr.html