Admittance: At What Cost?
When it comes to student access, High Tech High took a stand and opened their doors to those students who are classified as being the lowest on the education and economic scale. A school that looks like a top of the line, “Google-esq” establishment, is actually a free public school. The school’s selected students are those who come from rough backgrounds and low-income areas. This helps to reduce the barrier of attending progressive “tech” schools which would normally only be attended by wealthy students from upper class neighbourhoods and backgrounds.
Google Office… or High Tech High Classroom? “” by Marcin Wichary is licensed under CC BY 2.0
As the reader/viewer of this video, I raise a few issues of selecting students only based on their parents’ income:
- Why should it be based on the salary of parents, when these children who may benefit from attending High Tech high are now not able to attend because they come from a higher income family? Reducing a barrier for those of lower income actually creates a barrier for others.
- It is common for those higher income families to want their child to be successful in school, no matter what cost. Some wealthy parents are willing to pay for whatever tutoring, laptops, or learning aids their child may need so that they can achieve As and be accepted into their alma matter. While their grades may reflect success, many of these students may not have learned very much because of this sheltered system. What they show in book smarts, they lack in street smarts and perseverance. I wonder who would deliver more grit? A student who has only known how to use the support of others, or the student who has never been able to afford a tutor? It would be interesting to compare the success of each type of student at High Tech High.
As a teacher, we need to think critically and holistically about who our students are and what their backgrounds are. We can’t assume that the students who come from wealthy families are going to be inherently successful. While in the same thought, we can’t assume that the students who come from less-wealthy families will come with grit and determination. I understand that economic status is a common and efficient way to categorize people, but I would be curious if there is another way to assess which students would truly benefit from attending High Tech High.
As the researcher/creator of High Tech High, the main issues this school aims to address are those of social inequality and social differentiation. Social inequality is the unequal distribution of resources within a society. Social differentiation is the idea that people can be categorized based on characteristics including race, income, education and geography. Social differentiation is a key for fuelling social inequality; who you are and where you are from can have a large impact on the privileges that you have. High Tech High is focussing on limiting the social inequality that income and wealth can have on the accessibility to fair and open education, and ultimately lifelong success.
Influence for this analysis came from: https://opentextbc.ca/introductiontosociology2ndedition/chapter/chapter-9-social-inequality-in-canada/
Power Privilege and Oppression – Graduate School of Social Work -DU Licensed under CC
Does Sacrifice Equal Dedication?
Teachers at High Tech High are hired based on subject need and specialization; their contracts expire each year and they are paid less than the average American teacher. As a reader/watcher of this video, I applaud these teachers and have respect for their passion as educators. They are willing to sacrifice their job stability and have a lower wage because they are committed to the work that High Tech High is aiming to accomplish. The teachers see themselves as part of the greater good, rather than how they are being treated individually. As a reader/watcher, I can admit to myself that I would not be comfortable with this uncertainty – but does this mean that I am not as dedicated a teacher? The research does acknowledge this feeling of uncertainty these teachers feel, but its main objective of creating a project-based-learning and needs based school justifies this feeling of professional insecurity.
Behind the Scenes
High Tech High uses a completely self-directed, unstructured approach to learning, which enables full student autonomy. There are no standardized tests, and projects are used to “grade” and assess student learning.
From the researchers point of view, this is a progressive new model focusing on the shortcomings of the traditional way of learning and testing. The researcher highlights how standardized tests can be inaccurate, cater towards one style of learner, and do not reflect a learner’s overall profile. This researcher’s view would correlate strongly with the reading “Teaching for Meaningful Learning,” where Dr. Barron and Darling-Hammond argue that the focus of learning and education should be about knowledge growth for the individual and collective group. From a reader/watcher’s point of view, High Tech High’s unstructured learning approach emphasizes engagement and collaboration to develop collective knowledge. What I noticed is that the content and background knowledge on robotics, woodworking, or other skills needed for these projects, was not included in this film or part of the “researched” content. This challenged my belief and comfort level of a teacher that students need to have the core skills and content to be able to take this project based learning into their own hands and apply these skills to larger ideas and into a broader context. An example of this from High Tech High, is how did the students know how to physically build the large cog wheel, if the teacher did not explicitly show them how to in a traditional way? Was there direct instruction happening between the students and teacher behind the scenes? I wonder if the researcher decided to not focus on the traditional note-taking or direct instruction that may happen at points throughout the day, and instead emphasize the project based learning that happens after those instructions.
Social Butterfly vs. Wallflower
Walking through the hallways of High Tech High, it is easy to get carried away looking at the artwork, robots, and other visually intriguing projects that fill the halls. It was fascinating to watch the students painstakingly piece together the intricate cog, or set up the best lighting system to showcase their play, but is this just an illusion of the success of project based learning? It is no wonder that project based learning gets showcased in social media more, because it is a more interesting process of learning to the audience/reader. People are more interested in watching a class build a robot battle arena then watch them master complex algebraic equations – but which group is learning more? Is the flashier learning more valuable than the intrinsic problem solving?
A “Boring” Perspective of Learning “Home Work” by Sam & Sophie Images is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0
Flashy, “Social Media” worthy learning! “P1030079” by __andrew is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0
In my own classroom, I am hesitant to post on Facebook the “boring” photos of students completing math worksheets, or solving word problems, because I fear I will be labelled the “boring” math teacher. I know that these worksheets are building foundational skills of fractions, long division and algebraic equations so that we can then work on projects dealing with slope and velocity of racecar tracks. Why am I only showcasing the flashy work at the end rather than celebrating the internal process that happens before those projects can even develop?
These thoughts about flashy vs. unflashy lessons and work lead me to want to explore the perception of Project Based Learning from the teachers point of view when it comes to the amount of lesson planning and effort it takes to teach in this way…Â Can Project Based Learning Lead to Lazy Teaching? Another blog post to come!
This post looked at different components of the movie “Most Likely to Succeed”. I really enjoyed the different aspects that were explored in this blog post. In “Admittance: At what cost?”, the students in the movie are selected from a variety of backgrounds and attend at a charter school in the States. I personally do not understand the ins and outs of the charter school system in the States but I do know that they are becoming increasingly popular and have ramifications on people of lower social economic backgrounds. Traditionally, wealthier students have the opportunity to attend private school and families who do not have the financial means usually attend public school. It appears that High Tech High is trying to bridge that gap and give the same opportunities to students of all backgrounds. Bringing together a vast variety of students intensifies the richness of the school cultural.
I appreciate this post because it does raise the point that teachers at High Tech High get to follow their interests and have greater autonomy. I feel very lucky in my own practice that the new curriculum in B.C. allows us as teachers to have greater autonomy in our classrooms and allows us to use our passions to spark interests in students. This allows for a unique experience for our students to become a part of a creative learning culture, and demonstrates that following your passions can lead to lifelong learning.
Hayley’s review of High Tech High was very interesting. After reading this entry, two of Haley’s points struck critical chords with me. The first:
They are willing to sacrifice their job stability and have a lower wage because they are committed to the work that High Tech High is aiming to accomplish. The teachers see themselves as part of the greater good, rather than how they are being treated individually. As a reader/watcher, I can admit to myself that I would not be comfortable with this uncertainty – but does this mean that I am not as dedicated a teacher? The research does acknowledge this feeling of uncertainty these teachers feel, but its main objective of creating a project-based-learning and needs based school justifies this feeling of professional insecurity.
…did not sit with me. What’s interesting is that my aversion to the last sentence (which is what was bothering me, really) has nothing to do with any part of my education training.
My first degree, in sociology, explored social justice and social health / quality of life of the individual. Since becoming a teacher, I have become involved with my local union quite heavily, both as a staff rep for my own school and as a member of my union’s contract committee. If I am to put my “union hat” on, no push for a style learning justifies the insecurity of a trained, motivated, quality, and performing teacher, ever. If an individual performs above the bar, that should be recognized, appreciated, and rewarded by any employer. Otherwise, we lose our best teachers and do not recognize merit.
It is interesting that when I take said “hat” off, I then flip my stance and agree with the aforementioned statement. What are we, as educators, really motivated by, and what are we wiling to do in order for our learners to have the best possible methods presented to them? Should not the the best possible education model be my number one goal?
Second, when Hayley wrote how “People are more interested in watching a class build a robot battle arena then watch them master complex algebraic equations – but which group is learning more? Is the flashier learning more valuable than the intrinsic problem solving?”, I was nodding my head in agreement.
At the same time, I was covering my gaping jaw with my hand and held my eyes wide while thinking “am I that guy that’s simply flashy?”
Motivating students to learn is difficult. The satisfaction that comes with the smiles, excitement, and questions students bring when they are excited about a lesson, topic, or unit is the high educators seek. A teacher feels effective, proud, validated.
Personally, I do not ask myself often if the excitement I feel in a lesson is appropriate. Sure, students are excited with the flashy content I’m bringing…but are they learning?
Thank you, Hayley, for posing this transformative question at the beginning of summer holidays where I have two months of no class and therefore am unable to test it.