Papyrus News

My family and I moved to Japan in August for a one-year sabbatical.  I wanted to share the experience of what it was like to enroll my kids in school.  Since kindergarten is not mandatory here, it’s actually somewhat of a complex process, so perhaps this information will be helpful to others in similar situations.

Mandaratory Japanese school starts in first grade at the age of 6.  Whereas American kids typically have 1-2 years of (voluntary) preschool before they start (mandatory) kindergarten, Japanese kids typically have 2 years of (voluntary) kindergarten before they start (mandatory) first grade. These two years are called KG-1 (for 4 year olds) and KG-2 (for 5 year olds).

Our three kids were ages 4, 4, and 6, when we arrived in Tokyo in August — but the Japanese school year starts in April.  So their placement in the educational system was determined by their age on April 1 of this year, and on that date they were 4, 4, and 5, thus all 3 qualifying for kindergarten.

Since kindergarten is not mandatory, placement in it is not guaranteed, so we had to spend some time looking into these matters and hope we would find a good place.  It was even more complicated since we were coming some 4 months into the school year.  Finally, each of the 23 “ku’s” (wards) in Tokyo has its own school system, so we pretty much had to figure out where we were going to be living before we could pursue any details.

Fortunately, we had a lot of good advance information, mostly from extremely kind and knowledgeable people on the Education in Japan Yahoo Group. (They also have a Website and a blog.)  My big thanks to Aileen Kawagoe and all the helpful people in that group. The fact that my wife also speaks Japanese made a huge difference too.

My wife is originally from Japan (though has lived in the US a long time) and I am American.  Since one of the motivations for our coming to Japan was immersing our children in Japanese language and culture, we early on ruled out international schools.  That left us with two main choices: “yochien” and “hoikuen.”

A Japanese yochien is pretty similar in many ways to a US kindergarten–a half-day of learning that prepares children for the first year of school.  One main difference is that there are very high demands on mothers’ participation.  Moms are expected to make their children elaborate box lunches every day (bento) and participate heavily in the school experience.

In contrast, hoikuen are especially designed for working parents.  They last all day and most provide lunch.  Parents are not expected to be heavily involved.  However, they tend to be less academically oriented than yochien, and many parents thus prefer yochien as they believe they will better help their children prepare for the competitive Japanese educational system.

Finally, both yochien and hoikuen exist in both public and private variants.  All cost money, but public ones are subsidized and presumably cost less.

Since both my wife and I are here as visiting scholars conducting research, we chose to seek a hoikuen, and we sought entry into a public one.  Basically, we had to go to the ward office before the 15th of the month (August 15 in our case) in order to enroll our kids by the 1st of the next month (September 1 in our case).  We live right next to Waseda University campus, which is in Shinjuku ward, so that is where we went.  The office maintains a list of all the public hoikuens in the ward and how many spots they have open.  We had to consider the local hoikuens and request admission into a first, second, and third choice.  Fortunately, there was one a few minutes walk from our house that appeared to have sufficient spots, so we requested that as our first choice.  However, we had to worry about other families that might have been requesting spots during the same month and thus might be competing for placement in the hoikuen.

Another complicating factor is that our oldest son has Down syndrome.  Japanese primary schools of course accept all children with disabilities.  However, since Japanese kindergarten is not mandatory, children with disabilities are accepted in kindergarten on a space available basis.  In other words, each yochien or hoikuen only has space for a few children with disabilities, and once that number is met, the child would have to be assigned to another yochien or hoikuen.  Again this was aggravated by the fact that we were seeking spots in the middle of the school year.  We had to find a site that not only had spots for three children–two in KG-1 and one in KG-2–but that also had a spot in KG-2 for a child with a disability.  And, before all this happened, our son had to have a few evaluations to learn more about his disability and what kind of support he would need in kindergarten.

After going through all the registration procedures, we waited anxiously, and, in the end, things turned out magnificently.  All three children were placed in our first choice public hoikuen that is only a few minutes walk from our house.  Our two younger children are in a regular KG-1 class.  Our older son is in a regular KG-2 class, but has an individual aide to help him.  The wardis hiring a new person to work as an aide for him, but, in the interim, the hoikuen has reassigned a teacher from elsewhere in the school to work with him as an individual aide.  This reassigned teacher also speaks some English, which is even more helpful. (Our younger twins went to Japanese pre-school in the US and thus know more Japanese, but our older son hasn’t had as much exposure to Japanese so its great to have an aide who knows some English during his first month or two.)  Our twins can go to the school anytime from 9 am to 6:30 pm (we usually pick them up about 5 pm). Our older son, due to his special aide, can go for a little shorter time–from 9 am to 4 pm. We hired a local university student to pick him up at 4 pm and work with him on his English reading for an hour a day after hoikuen.

From what we can gather, the hoikuen is very play oriented, without much focus on academics or explicit instruction.  That’s fine with us.  So far we are very pleased with the program there.  The teachers all seem really dedicated and the facility is reasonably nice (given how crowded things are in Tokyo).  The food is great too and are children are adjusting there nicely. The only thing we don’t particular care for is that the children take naps every afternoon, which is unusual for children that age in the US and which ends up keeping them up until much later than their US bedtime.

Oddly, our kids attended the hoikuen for nearly 3 weeks before we received a statement from the Shinjuku ward office indicating how much we would have to pay for all of this.  Payment is determined based on salary in the previous year — and since both Keiko and worked full-time last year, we came out in the maximum payment bracket.  We waited anxiously every day to find out how much we would have to pay. When we finally got the letter, to our pleasant surprise, we learned that the total payment for all three children is only 30,600 Japanese yen a month ($357 total for the three children at today’s exchange rate).  That is based on 18,000 yen ($210) for the first child, 12,600 yen ($147) for the second child based on a two-child discount, and the third child free.  These rates vary from ward to ward and I’m not sure if every ward has such low rates and a policy of third child free. But in our case, we are of course very pleased.

Thanks again to everybody who provided information to help us get through all this.  It was quite a chore, but in the end it worked out perfectly.

Two recent studies on the effect of home computer access on students’ academic achievement have recently gotten a lot of attention after being discussed by David Brooks and Randall Stross in the New York Times.  In Romania, children of families that won a voucher to purchase a computer had lower school grades in Math, English, and Romanian after a year that children of families who did not get the voucher.  In North Carolina, children who gained access to a computer also experienced lower test scores in math. The papers were recently discussed in the New York Times In 2008, Paige Ware and I published a paper called Learning, Change, and Power: Competing Discourses of Technology and Literacy.  I believe these three competing frameworks are very helpful for considering how to interpret these findings.

I use the term “Learning” (admittedly, not the best term) to refer to those who evaluate uses of technology by students solely from the perspective of the impact on academic achievement, usually as measured by student test scores taken within the first year or two of gaining access.  From this point of view, the two studies confirm what many have suspected–that supplying computers to children does not raise their test scores and that there is thus little reason to increase spending on computers in schools.  (And, if we do choose to use computers in schools, our only measuring stick for their success should be how they impact standardized test scores.)

I use the term “Change” to refer to those people who value sweeping change in the media of communication for its own sake.  From this perspective, everything new that children do, from tweeting to instant messaging to online gaming, is breaking through the old, limited way of doing things and is preparing students for a successful life in the 21st century.  Thus test scores don’t matter–only difficult-to-measure new literacies do–and we could probably solve most educational problems if we tore down schools and let kids play online games all day.

From the perspective of “Power,” the ultimate goal of education is not test scores alone, or newness for its own sake, but rather increasing the opportunities of individuals and communities to fully participate in, and contribute to, society in all walks of life, through further study, careers, and civic engagement.  From this point of view, test scores matter, because they are reflective of important underlying skills of literacy and numeracy, but they are not the be all and end all.  New literacies also matter, but, like traditional literacies, they must be seen in context. From this “Power” perspective, we are not only teaching student to read and write texts, but also to read and write the world.

Taking this perspective into account, we cannot try to keep computers out of children’s hands, because they need to learn how to use digital media well for their lives and their futures.  (Indeed, those who are arguing against the educational use of computers are using computers for their own pontificating, and I bet their children are using computers as well).  Indeed, since low-income children are less likely to master new technological literacies without outside intervention, we are at risk of growing inequality of we don’t figure out how to best make use of technology in education.

At the same time, though, we will not be empowering youth for the long-term if we simply “give them [laptops] and get out of their way”, as advocated by the initiator of the One Laptop Per Child program in Birmingham, Alabama. With the OLPC’s XO laptops owned and maintained by children and their families, there is growing evidence that they are seldom used in schools, even in model OLPC programs such as that in Uruguay. If they are not being used much in school, any benefits would thus need to come from home use.  The problem is that, simply providing computers for use at home, outside of any educational intervention or mentoring, likely means they will be principally used to hang out with friends online or play simple games–and any gaps that exist between low- and high-income youth may be amplified (since high-income youth will likely have more social support from friends, neighbors, and family members to support more advanced uses of technology, see, e.g., Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010).

What then to do?  I believe that we need to integrate technology into education with a great deal of attention to the other elements–especially curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, professional development, and infrastructure–that can help make its use effective.  We also need careful planning, pilot programs, formative and summative evaluation, and staged implementation to help make programs successful. There is evidence (see this example in Colorado) that, when we do this, we will have success in helping students increase test scores and develop new literacies.  All of this means that the path toward a digital education will be slower, but in the long run much more successful.  To choose either of the other alternatives–either massively handing out computers to young children without ensuring that other requisite elements are in place, or abandoning a vision of improving schools with technology–is to give up before we start.

Remember the Hole-in-the-Wall experiment in India?  Based on the principal of “minimally-invasive pedagogy,” computers were installed in kiosk walls in Indian slums so that children could teach themselves about technology.  Though the organizers of the project have published a series of very positive reviews over the years, until now I am not aware of any independent reports on the project and its results, other than my own discussion based on a visit to one of the sites.

Now, an article by an independent researcher has appeared, reporting some interesting findings.  It turns out that the two Hole-in-the-Wall sites that she visited both stand in ruins, one closed down within a few months of its opening due to vandalism, the other surviving until it became inactive. According to the article, while the broader Hole-in-the-Wall project still exists, it has evolved from its earlier approach of eschewing relationship with community organizations, schools, and adult mentors, and has now “started to focus more on the building of ties with the school, particularly in regard to using the teachers or others in the local communities as mediators in learning.”   This is a welcome change and reflects the important realization that mentorship and institutional support are important if children are to learn effectively with technology.

Well, according to this recent study, no, at least in terms of standardized math and reading outcomes. Two Duke economists use large scale data sets to investigate the impact of gaining access to computers and the Internet on children’s test scores in math and reading.  For computer ownership, they use a self-reported measure by students.  For Internet access, they use a proxy variable related to number of local Internet Service Providers.  In both cases, whether via home computer ownership or ISP access, they find a negative impact on individual student’s math and reading scores after gaining more home access to technology. The negative impact is greatest for African-American youth–for other groups, the impact is mixed (sometimes positive, sometimes negative, depending on the measure and group).  The authors interpret their findings as indicating that unproductive uses of computers tend to crowd out time spent doing homework, especially for low-income and minority students who may not have the kinds of social support needed for more productive uses of technology at home.

The differential impact of home technology by different groups is consistent with that find previously, for example, in our recent review of technology and equity among U.S. youth. It provides further evidence that the aim of our educational efforts should not be mere access, but rather development of a social environment where access to technology is coupled with the most effective curriculum, pedagogy, instruction, and assessment.

Jaime Escalante, one of the best known and most accomplished classroom teachers in the U.S. has died.  What lessons can we learn from his life in pushing forward with educational reform?  I think there are three — at least two of which will likely require a major restructuring of U.S. education to achieve on a mass scale.

1. Combining High Expectations and Culturally-Sensitive Teaching

Educational reformers have been divided between their emphasis on communitarianism (fostering greater respect for and among learners by addressing student needs, empowering students, creating a positive collaborative atmosphere, and teaching in a culturally sensitive and relevant way) and academic press (ensuring high academic standards through a challenging curriculum, high teacher expectations, and assignment of homework).  Escalante showed that both of these are important and was a master at combining them. We need to have the highest expectations and most rigorous standards, but we also have to teach to those standards in a way that reaches out to diverse students, understands and respects where they are coming from, and makes them feel meaningfully involved.

2. Highly Skilled/Well-Trained Teachers with Pedagogical Content Expertise

Similarly, there has been a divide between those who demand that educators have content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge.  Escalante, with a strong background in math and a teaching credential, demonstrated how both types of knowledge are required, and, what’s more, that they need to be combined in what Shulman called Pedagogical Content knowledge — that is, pedagogical expertise in a particular content area. (Or, in today’s world, what Mishra and Koehler call Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge).

3. Lengthening the School Day and Year

Escalante was able to achieve his goals only through immense personal effort, which involved teaching extra sessions for students before school, after school, and on weekends.  This was accomplished at great personal cost to him, as he suffered a heart attack in his early 50s during one of his busiest years.

How then an we scale up what Escalante achieved at one school to improve education nationally.  Of course we need to emphasize rigorous standards, high expectations, culturally sensitive teaching, and the development of pedagogical content expertise.  However, we will not be able to lengthen the school day or year without massive infusion of new funds for education, as we cannot rely on the personal sacrifices of individual heros on a national basis.  Nor will we likely be able to attract highly skilled teachers on a mass scale without improving their compensation.  Charter schools, such as those run by KIPP, claim that they can recruit talented teachers and extend the school day and week without adding to costs, but their ability to do so is shaped by their particular context (they are small in number, and they are not required to accept all students with special needs, English learning needs, or behavioral problems).  Such solutions are not feasible on a mass scale.

In summary, we need to improve our approach to educational reform, but also give public education a much higher priority.  Jaime Escalante’s lessons require not only new approaches, but also infusion of new funding.

For further information on these topics:

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

Phillips, M. (1997). What makes schools effective? A comparison of the relationships of communitarian climate and academic climate to mathematics achievement and attendance during middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 34(4), u. doi:10.3102/00028312034004633

Shouse, R. C. (1996). Academic press and sense of community: Conflict, congruence, and implications for student achievement. Social psychology of education, 1, 47-68. doi:10.1007/BF02333405

Shulman,  L.  (1986).  Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15 (2), 4-14.

Warschauer, M. (2000). Technology and school reform: A view from both sides of the track. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(4). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n4.html

Thank heaven there are adults in the White House.  The draft National Educational Technology Plan made available this week represents a highly informed, sophisticated, bold, and thoughtful approach toward improving U.S. education with new media.  In that it reflects the tremendous amount of talent, expertise, and experience of the plan developers, as well as the insight of the Department of Education leaders who recruited and advised them.

The report has many strengths.  It places educational technology within the proper context of reforming  education and better preparing our youth to lead productive and successful lives in the 21st century.  The report takes some important steps to moving beyond the skills/knowledge debate by putting forth the notion of 21st century expertise rather than merely 21st century skills.  It addresses the critical issue of assessment head on and at length, nicely tying together issues of measuring complex forms of learning, conducting more formative rather than only summative assessments, and using technology to provide more at-the-point-of-need assessment data to teachers and educational leaders.

The report also focuses nicely on the infrastructure that will be needed to accomplish all of this, including what it calls individual “access devices” for students and teachers (with suggestions about how family- and school-funding can be combined to make this possible), greatly expanded broadband in and out of schools, cloud computing, and Open Educational Resources.  Much attention is also put to better pre-service and inservice preparation of teachers to promote 21st century learning, and the ways that technology can assist this preparation.  A broad perspective is evident  throughout the report, with suitable reference to what has been learned from fields as diverse as neuroscience and business.

While this is a superb blueprint for improving education with technology, I believe it can be improved in a number of small ways.

(1) The very positive and needed attention to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) education in the report matched by sufficient attention to literacy and writing.  This unfortunate given the critical role that writing plays in a knowledge economy.  Writing is not just a means of communication but a window to learners’ thinking processes, and an emphasis on expository writing has been shown to improve learning across the curriculum for diverse students.  And while the report claims that technology’s effects are most profound in STEM subjects (p. 22), studies suggest that the use of technology has the greatest impact on English language arts and especially on the teaching of writing.

A lack of sufficient emphasis on writing is perhaps tied to the report’s call for students to have “access devices,” rather than computing or communication devices.  I would suggest that, since writing is critical for learning, and keyboards are valuable for writing, it matters a great deal what kinds of Internet access devices students have, with netbooks, for example, having great advantages over cell phones.

(2) While the report has admirably emphasized the needs of reaching all learners, it could be improved in its discussion of ways to do so.  Again I believe the issue of literacy here is key.  The report emphasizes ways that students’ limited language or literacy skills can be compensated for, for example, by providing content in multimedia form.  However, Universal Design for Learning (UDL), which is suitably emphasized in the report, focuses not only on increasing students’ immediate access to content, but also in improving their long-term ability to successfully master academic discourse.  This, in turn, requires improved use of technology to extend students’ language and literacy proficiency, not merely to compensate for limited language or literacy.  Strategies for accomplishing this are not adequately discussed.

Also related to UDL, and to the above point about writing–learners with disabilities especially benefit from computer-based writing, since they often lack the hand-eye coordination for extensive writing by hand; yet this crucial use of technology was ignored in the section on learning disabilities.

(3) The report is a bit overly optimistic about the potential of online learning, especially with at-risk learners.  Though there is reference on p. 47 and p. 71 to the value of blended learning opportunities, in other places the report seems to downplay the challenges of online learning, emphasizing, for example, that the school day can be extended through online learning. Yet it is the most skilled and motivated learners function best in online environments, and this is especially true in home environments where learners from low-income families may lack the social support for effective learning with technology. An emphasis on increased online learning could thus magnify rather than overcome divides.

(4) There seems to be a bit too much undifferentiated discussion of engagement in the report.  The report is absolutely correct that fostering engagement is important, but differences between affective, behavioral, and cognitive engagement are not discussed.  As Michael Porter of Littleton Public Schools pointed out in a recent presentation, it is precisely because working with media engages students so much that we might be lured into thinking they are carrying out valuable learning tasks even if they are not.

There are a number of other very small ways the report could be improved throughout.  The mention of the goal that “all students…graduate from high school” (my emphasis, p. 2) by 2020 repeats some of the absurdly unrealistic language of No Child Left Behind (can “all students” be expected to do anything?).  The point that we expect students to be “skillful and strategic learners”  “rather than being content experts” unfortunately reinforces the skills vs. knowledge dichotomy that the report otherwise challenges; it would be much better to say “in addition to being content experts.” A Ready to Learn program for pre-schoolers  is mentioned without being explained, the excellent attention to Open Educational Resources and Cloud Computing is not accompanied by even a mention of open source software, and the main figure illustrating the report’s Model of Learning (p. 11) is  difficult to decipher. And finally, the important call to expand broadband computing lacks suggestions about how this might be accomplished.

I offer these suggestions in part because the document is circulating in draft form, thus implying that feedback is requested.  In fact, though, all of these suggestions for improvement taken together are relatively minor details in what is an exciting and important plan for improving education with technology in the 21st century.  If the reports’ recommendations are followed and backed up by funding, this could prove to be a historic document in transforming U.S. schooling.