By NATASHA SINGER and MIKE ISAACAUG.
9, 2016
Facebook is out to upend the traditional
student-teacher relationship.
On Tuesday, Facebook and Summit Public Schools, a nonprofit charter school network
with headquarters in Silicon Valley, announced that nearly 120 schools planned
this fall to introduce a free student-directed learning system developed
jointly by the social network and the charter schools.
Rather than have teachers hand out
class assignments, the Facebook-Summit learning management system puts students
in charge of selecting their projects and setting their pace. The idea is to
encourage students to develop skills, like resourcefulness and time management,
that might help them succeed in college.
“As parents and kids and teachers
get access to this type of learning, I think more and more will want it,” Diane
Tavenner, the co-founder and chief executive of Summit Public Schools, said in
a telephone interview.
In June, Google said more than 60
million students and teachers worldwide used Google Apps for Education, a suite
of free products that includes Gmail and Google Drive for document-sharing.
Many other schools use Microsoft productivity tools and Skype, the
videoconferencing tool, in classrooms. Amazon also plans to soon introduce Amazon Inspire, a site where teachers can share free instructional
materials.
But the Summit-Facebook system,
called the “Summit Personalized Learning Platform,” is different.
The software gives students a full
view of their academic responsibilities for the year in each class and breaks
them down into customizable lesson modules they can tackle at their own pace. A
student working on a science assignment, for example, may choose to create a
project using video, text or audio files. Students may also work
asynchronously, tackling different sections of the year’s work at the same
time.
The system inverts the traditional
teacher-led classroom hierarchy, requiring schools to provide intensive
one-on-one mentoring and coaching to help each student adapt.
This summer, more than 1,500
educators and leaders of public, private and charter schools participating in
the program, called Summit Basecamp, attended sessions to learn how to use the
system. Among the 19 schools that introduced the new learning approach last
year, at least a few educators and administrators reported a steep learning
curve.
“There were many points where we
weren’t sure the Summit Basecamp model was what our students needed,” said
Claire Fisher, the principal of Urban Promise Academy, a public middle school
in Oakland, Calif., which introduced the platform in its sixth-grade classes.
By the end of the school year,
however, 31 percent of the school’s sixth graders were reading at or above
their grade level, compared with just 9 percent in the fall. That was a larger
improvement in reading than students in seventh and eighth grades, which did
not use the platform, Ms. Fisher said.
Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief
executive, and his wife, Dr. Priscilla Chan, were the catalysts for the
partnership. It is the couple’s most public education effort since 2010 when
they provided $100 million to help overhaul public schools in Newark, a
top-down effort that ran into a local opposition.
The Facebook-Summit partnership, by contrast, is more of a
ground-up effort to create a national demand for student-driven learning in
schools. Facebook announced its support for the system last September; the company declined to
comment on how much it is spending on it. Early this month, Summit and Facebook
opened the platform up to individual teachers who have not participated in Summit’s extensive on-site
training program.
Study Questions: Make sure to answer each question in complete sentences in one comment published to the blog.
Does this article provide conclusive
proof that students perform best without the influence of a teacher with
structured lesson plans?
What does this new technology mean
for the future of education? Does this lead you to think that the public school
classroom will look significantly different in 20 or 30 years? Why or why not?
What do you think is the intended
purpose of this technology? Could this technology be used for another purpose –
could it actually be used to reshape public education? How?
Could this technology be
used to replace teachers at some point in the future? Could it change the role
of the teacher in the classroom? How? Explain.
Could this be the solution to the
many problems facing public education as discussed in the documentary? Why or
why not?
What appeal(s) is/are being used in this article? Give an example.