Comments on: Same As It Ever Was: Investing in Innovation Fund (i3), Student Support Services (SSS), TRIO, and More to Come http://blog.seliger.com/2009/11/08/same-as-it-ever-was-investing/ Mon, 08 Mar 2010 00:19:46 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Acronym Confusion at the Department of Education: Does i3 Mean “Innovation through Institutional Integration” or “Investing in Innovation Fund?” http://blog.seliger.com/2009/11/08/same-as-it-ever-was-investing/comment-page-1/#comment-15063 Acronym Confusion at the Department of Education: Does i3 Mean “Innovation through Institutional Integration” or “Investing in Innovation Fund?” Thu, 17 Dec 2009 04:34:25 +0000 http://blog.seliger.com/?p=467#comment-15063 [...] Integration (I3)” program, which immediately made me think of the i3 programs that Isaac wrote about here. I sent him an e-mail saying, “the i3 RFPs are starting to be [...] [...] Integration (I3)” program, which immediately made me think of the i3 programs that Isaac wrote about here. I sent him an e-mail saying, “the i3 RFPs are starting to be [...]

]]> By: Harry Keller http://blog.seliger.com/2009/11/08/same-as-it-ever-was-investing/comment-page-1/#comment-14065 Harry Keller Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:52:20 +0000 http://blog.seliger.com/?p=467#comment-14065 Sad but true: so many education grants, so little results. As the folk song says, "When will they ever learn?" The only results of the Race to the Top initiative are likely to be states being more lenient about allowing charter schools and lowering barriers to allowing student test results being used in teacher evaluations. However, I too have a dog in this race. Large bureaucracies rarely innovate. The i3 wording now strongly favors large entities by requiring extensive studies for the larger grants. Only those with lots of money can perform these studies. Studies in education can be arranged to provide just about any outcome and so are not very meaningful. If studies could prove that this or that learning method were better, then we would soon find the best way to learn and achieve education nirvana. Hasn't happened. Instead of clear-cut results, education studies just provide us with hints. You have to be pretty knowledgeable to interpret these hints well. Back to me. I have created a real innovation in education -- well, in a small education niche. My innovation allows districts to save lots of money while improving learning outcomes in science classes. It allows just-in-time remediation (if anyone chooses to use it for that purpose). It enforces inquiry-exploration-discovery learning, unless teachers choose to defeat it. I maintains a record of student achievement spanning grades 6-12 and can be used to compare teachers. It uses the latest "cloud computing" technology to deliver the best possible student-computer interaction with very little effort on the part of district IT personnel. It does all of these things while retaining the true spirit of science that is lost in the animations and simulations so often used to substitute for real inquiry. I just happen to think that my innovation is a perfect match for i3 grants. Its only problem is that it's not in math or ELA but in science. Still, science is high on Duncan's priorities. We've had great success in online education, a place that the Secretary is expecting to see new innovations come from. Already, schools in New York and Florida use our technology to assign science labs as homework, a real innovation by itself. Contact me: smartscience@paracompusa.com. Sad but true: so many education grants, so little results. As the folk song says, “When will they ever learn?”

The only results of the Race to the Top initiative are likely to be states being more lenient about allowing charter schools and lowering barriers to allowing student test results being used in teacher evaluations.

However, I too have a dog in this race. Large bureaucracies rarely innovate. The i3 wording now strongly favors large entities by requiring extensive studies for the larger grants. Only those with lots of money can perform these studies. Studies in education can be arranged to provide just about any outcome and so are not very meaningful. If studies could prove that this or that learning method were better, then we would soon find the best way to learn and achieve education nirvana. Hasn’t happened.

Instead of clear-cut results, education studies just provide us with hints. You have to be pretty knowledgeable to interpret these hints well.

Back to me. I have created a real innovation in education — well, in a small education niche. My innovation allows districts to save lots of money while improving learning outcomes in science classes. It allows just-in-time remediation (if anyone chooses to use it for that purpose). It enforces inquiry-exploration-discovery learning, unless teachers choose to defeat it. I maintains a record of student achievement spanning grades 6-12 and can be used to compare teachers. It uses the latest “cloud computing” technology to deliver the best possible student-computer interaction with very little effort on the part of district IT personnel.

It does all of these things while retaining the true spirit of science that is lost in the animations and simulations so often used to substitute for real inquiry.

I just happen to think that my innovation is a perfect match for i3 grants. Its only problem is that it’s not in math or ELA but in science. Still, science is high on Duncan’s priorities. We’ve had great success in online education, a place that the Secretary is expecting to see new innovations come from. Already, schools in New York and Florida use our technology to assign science labs as homework, a real innovation by itself.

Contact me: smartscience@paracompusa.com.

]]>