Marshall

Educational Media International, Vol. 42, No. 2, June 2005, pp. 153–159

Mind the gap! Policy issues for e-learning proponents Gail Marshall* Gail Marshall & Associates, USA 0GailMarshall Gail 00000March Marshall & 2005 Associates2393 Broadmont Taylor Educational 10.1080/09523980500060316 REMI106014.sgm 0952-3987 Original International 12005 42 and Article print/1469-5790 Francis Media Council Ltd International for Educational online Media CtChesterfieldMO [email protected]

Historical precedents continue to impact American education and current controversies in the USA suggest that e-learning may become a focal point for the series of curriculum, culture and control wars that have been a feature of American education for a century. Given the dominance of American commercial interests on the World Wide Web, as well as the increasing globalisation of Web access, the influence of American models and practices may pose a serious challenge for the maintenance of a wide range of pedagogical practices and content. Kümmert euch um die Lücke! Strategieüberlegungen für E-Learning Befürworter Historische Präzedenzfälle beeinflussen weiterhin die amerikanische Erziehung und zur Zeit stattfindende Auseinandersetzungen in den USA vermitteln den Eindruck, dass E-Learning zu einem zentralen Punkt für eine Reihe von Curriculum-, Kultur- und Kontrollkriegen werden könnte, die schon sei einem Jahrhundert Merkmal der amerikanischen Erziehung gewesen sind. Unter dem Eindruck der Dominanz kommerzieller Interessen Amerikas im Internet sowie des wachsenden globalen Zugangs zum Web, könnte der Einfluss amerikanischer Modelle und Praktiken eine ernsthafte Herausforderung für die Beibehaltung eines breiten Spektrums pädagogischer Praktiken und Inhalte darstellen. Attention au fossé ! Problèmes politiques pour les avocats de l’apprentissage en ligne Les précédents historiques continuent à influencer l’enseignement américain et les controverses actuelles aux Etats Unis permettent de penser que l’apprentissage en ligne peut devenir un foyer actif dans la série de conflits portant sur les programmes, la culture et le pouvoir qui ont marqué l’enseignement américain depuis un siècle. Si l’on tient compte, d’une part de la position dominante qu’occupent les intérêts commerciaux américains sur le Web et d’autre part de la globalisation croissante de l’accès au Web,l’influence des modèles et pratiques américains peut compromettre sérieusement le maintien d’une gamme élargie de pratiques et de contenus pédagogiques.

Keywords: Curriculum; Policy; Standards

* Gail Marshall & Associates, 2393 Broadmont Ct., Chesterfield, MO, 63017, USA. Email: [email protected] ISSN 0952-3987 (print)/ISSN 1469-5790 (online)/05/020153–07 © 2005 International Council for Educational Media DOI: 10.1080/09523980500060316

154 G. Marshall Introduction E-learning offers all stakeholders the promise of access to a wider range of educational materials than ever before. But as e-learning becomes more widely recognised as an instructional resource, especially one that broadens access and helps achieve equity, policy makers as well as developers and consumers of e-learning will probably confront problems that challenge many Americans’ vision for schools. The curriculum wars, and the culture and control wars currently raging in the USA may be enacted in one form or another around the globe as policy makers view American models and debate their appropriateness in local settings, raising the question, ‘What is the best and wisest decision for a community?’ In addition, the ways the debates are framed pose serious questions about the message delivered to children and other stakeholders. In many instances, rancor and invective instead of reasonable debate and calm presentation of viewpoints characterise the content of some Web sites. Such public displays of wrath are counterproductive for a society that seeks to respect the rights of all citizens to present information is public forums and that seeks to inculcate in its young the value of free speech as the mark of a progressive society. Children are ill-served in two other ways: (1) the debate about what and how to teach does not provide them with a clear view of what forms and content of learning are valuable for today and tomorrow. The debates are not framed around the utility of learning for life in the twentyfirst century but, instead, are posed as narrow debates about two different perspectives on learning, each with merits but each with strategies and measures that are viewed with suspicion or scorn by adherents of the opposing point of view, (2) the content of some of the Web sites promotes points of view that are viewed as having no basis in fact. Given research by Pearson (2002) and McFarlane (2002) on the lack of scrutiny children use when analysing Web-supplied content, the use of the Web to promote the dissemination of ‘faulty science’ is troubling, even given First Amendment considerations. But the purpose of this paper is not to analyse the implications of the Web-based material for ‘truth-finding’ but to present issues surrounding one county’s public discourse that has implications for policy making worldwide. The curriculum wars The issue of what the best parent wants in terms of curriculum—what is taught, how it is taught and how learning is assessed—has been controversial since the founding of America’s public schools (Ravitch, 2000). Although history/social studies, physical education and science have been subject to criticism, reading and mathematics instruction have most often been criticised, and continue to roil educators, parents and policy makers. The reading wars The battle has long raged over phonics vs whole language approaches to reading (Kolstad & Bardwell, 1997). Recent funding policies for reading instruction will have far-reaching effects on all aspects of education, including e-learning, since the current reauthorisation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act calls for a phonics approach to reading. Metcalf (2002) points out the political roots of the decision as well as noting that (a) adherents of the

Policy issues for e-learning proponents 155 whole language approach will be shut out of curriculum building, and (b) phonics materials tend to neglect social, historical and environmental issues often addressed in whole language texts. The American reading wars matter because the content and methods favored in current legislation will be translated by commercial publishers into e-learning sites designed by those publishers and other content providers. Because of increasing globalisation, other countries will either be under pressure to adopt similar methods or will find stakeholders adopting those methods independent of their governments’ own policies. The math wars The math wars have also been waged over several decades (www.nea.org). Like the reading wars, stakeholders have joined the battle. Some opt for a ‘mathematically correct’ approach (www.mathematicallycorrect.com) to content and pedagogy that favours drill and an emphasis on number; others favour more problem solving and coverage of topics in addition to number— probability and statistics, a wider range of geometry topics than Euclidean geometry and ‘real world’ applications of mathematics (www.mathematicallysane.com). One victim of the math wars appears to be the teaching of Logo, which has become increasingly marginalised as critics question its utility for providing skills perceived necessary for the twenty-first century workplace. The math wars matter because the content and pedagogy provided via textbooks will also affect content provided on Web sites sponsored by textbook publishers and other content providers. In the case of the math wars, the debate also shows how communities, especially parents, have become active for and against policy initiatives. The gap between parents adhering to the ‘mathematically correct’ and the ‘mathematically sane’ approaches has grown as forums for discussion and debate have often been reduced to rancorous invective from both sides. Those donnybrooks may repeat themselves if similar policy wars break out in other countries. And the problem of American dominance in the production of educational media (International Society for Technology in Education, 2002) signals the potential ubiquity of restrictive positions on math content and pedagogy in e-learning environments. The testing wars Who should be tested, what should tests measure, and how should tests be constructed and conducted has also be the subject of controversy (English & Steffy, 2001). But recently the debate has reached a new pitch as President George Bush has mandated annual standardised tests for all students from Grade 3 (ages 8–9) to Grade 8 (ages 12–13). While most citizens are not opposed to testing, the key issues of test content, the types of tests constructed and the uses to which testing information is put have generated debate. Critics oppose the current plan saying, ‘The new Bush testing regime emphasises minimum competence along a narrow range of skills, with an eye toward satisfying the low end of the labour market’ (Metcalf, 2002). Proponents see the tests as satisfying industry’s need for an economcally viable labour force. Questions as to whether the current plans for testing will actually improve schools or will add to the already high drop-out rate are frequently featured in the media, and signal a gap between the those who believe tests will raise standards and those who believe current plans will yield

156 G. Marshall ‘teach to the test’ forms of instructions in most classrooms (Traub, 2002). Few e-learning sites address the fundamental epistemological rationales underlying the opposing points of view and so the discourse is debased, yielding little or no information about why the debates matter and less information on the potential consequences of either point of view for the children, who are after all, the ultimate consumers of e-learning. What types of testing/assessments should be used? Parents, key stakeholders in the plans for standardised testing programs, regard tests as only one of the many options for determining students’ progress, and not the best option at that. Shepard and Bleim (1995) conducted a survey of parents’ attitudes toward testing and compared those attitudes to those of the community-at-large. A sample of third graders’ parents vs a community sample showed that 46% of the third grade parents approved of standardised tests compared to 71% of the national sample. But Shepard and Bleim (p. 13) showed that an even greater gap occurred between parents’ perceptions of the usefulness of standardised tests (46% approving, 18% strongly approving of math standardised tests but 38% approving and 31% strongly approving of performance assessments in math). In reacting to reading assessment 47% of the third grade parents approved of standardised tests (18% strongly approving) but 47% approved of performance assessments while 30% strongly approved of those performance assessments. Given the current political trends for standardised testing initiatives, the gaps signal interesting debates ahead. The debate over testing has class/racial aspects which further complicate the solution of Standards issues (Traub, 2002). In describing the reactions of parents in high income school districts to New York State’s new demands for standardised testing, Traub says, ‘[…] they see in a reform whose goal is to level students up a threat to level their own students down’ (p. 78). Such gaps have implications for e-learning insofar as providers of e-learning materials model their content on trends for the design of standardised tests. Will parents’ perceptions or government mandates be the model? Will models of testing and accountability adopted in America be exported abroad via e-learning situations and, if so, what are the implications for curriculum development and its alignment with assessment procedures? More importantly, what are the e-learning implications for children caught in the middle of the debates when opposing voices and not rational discourse about testing and evaluation methodologies—their merits and drawbacks—are eschewed? What constitutes a ‘standard’? Another issue facing policy makers is how high the bar should be set in deciding what constitutes adequate or satisfactory performance levels. In the U.S., schools are funded by local real property taxes, with federal monies being spent on a variety of compensatory programs—some of which are distributed almost automatically based in socio-economic status indices; others are awarded on a competitive basis. Those federal monies expand or shrink depending on policies and politics. Most recently, federal guidelines have mandated that schools deemed to be failing to meet standards will be closed and/or significantly reorganised.

Policy issues for e-learning proponents 157 A pressing question for many school districts, many of which do not question the need to meet standards, is, ‘Should students in poor districts be expected to meet the average scores around the state or should those schools be ranked by a different formula?’ (Viadero 1999). States propose different formulae but worry about the immediate and long-term consequences of gaps in school financing and gaps between the performance of schools in low-funded districts vs schools in high-funded districts. Questions about standards matter for e-learners because the content of many Web sites will be determined by where the bar is set as commercial and even eleemosynary Web site purveyors tend to follow the tests. The culture and control wars In many ways, the curriculum wars are directly related to and affected by cultures outside the school which, in turn, affect the internal school culture. Recall Dewey’s statement about what the best and wisest parent wants. The increasing impact of religious fundamentalism, in almost all religious groups, has had two consequences for American schools. Recently, the number of non-government funded schools has increased as has a trend toward home-schooling. One result has been the proliferation of Web sites sponsored by a wide range of groups, many of which do not participate in traditional schooling and eschew the content and values embodied in ‘traditional schools’. While freedom of expression is a cherished value, freedom of expression often collides with current models based on scientific reasoning. So science teaching is an especially vulnerable target in the wars. Some states have decreed that ‘creationist science’ must be taught in tandem with evolution; others are on record as opposing the teaching of evolution (Skool, 1980). Web sites supporting ‘creationist science’ are a fact of life in the e-learning environment. The teaching of probability and statistics is also affected by the culture wars since many states have informed educational resourcers that the use of spinners, dice and other tools of chance are specifically forbidden by groups in several major states consuming educational materials. Two consequences of the culture and control wars have become apparent: (1) Web sites sponsored by ‘alternative’ approaches to traditionally accepted theories and pedagogical practices are proliferating, and (2) legislation on local and state levels mandating strict filtering of Web sites is increasing. For example, a battle is raging over a law passed by the U.S. Congress calling for filtering information in all school libraries (Schwartz, 2002). So, in many school districts, access to a wide range of information and a wide range of pedagogical experiences is difficult, if not impossible. E-learning, then, occurs in a narrow space instead of an open space where many learning possibilities can challenge the learner to test, ponder and generate ideas. The culture and control wars matter because on the one hand we see a proliferation of Web sites where the information may not be scientifically verifiable and on the other hand access to relevant Web sites may be denied because of the types of filtering used. Conclusions In a discussion of the theoretical basis for computer-mediated environments, Dowling (1999) says:

158 G. Marshall […] electronically mediated environments provide a wealth of opportunities for the deliberate creation of alternative manifestations of ourselves […] (p. 165)

But in the accumulated wars of curriculum, culture and control, the questions is, ‘Who is ‘ourselves’ and which of the many ‘ourselves’ contending for power will set the predominating models for e-learning content and access?’ The current fluidity of Internet culture provides the promise that for every constraint adopted, adaptations, inventions and policies will be devised to meet a wide range of needs and interests. On the other hand, the increasing domination of the Web by a few commercial entities controlling media suggests that what is viewed as best for the community may be exclusionary and dominated by a one or two models of content and process. It may be that, for many children, the Web is restricted to subscribers, true believers and mandated modes of teaching and learning. An equally intriguing possibility is that the reactions to commercialism may lead to a deschooling of the Web. A paradox exists with respect to the current state of ‘openness of the Web’. We laud the ability of many different groups to present their points of view on the Web. We also propose that the Web provides e-learning opportunities unparalleled by other media. But suppose the diffusion of many different viewpoints serves to close minds to the multiplicity of ‘truths’ existing in the world and becomes, for some, the means of barricading themselves behind ‘a’ truth to the exclusion of the examination of other points of view? How does the community at large work within that paradoxical framework? Certainly both pathways can be seen in current Web use. The use a country makes of the Web as it works toward e-learning options has implications beyond the classroom as world events have dramatically illustrated. It is also interesting that in all the controversy about what is to be taught the question of how children learn and the issues of how children handle that learning which is of value to them, both now and for the future, receives little attention. So mind the current gaps between policies and aspirations, and look for each outcome in the wars because how we deal with issues such as the paradox of open/closed is of equal importance with (and a part of) issues of how teachers teach and how students interact, search the Web and create their own knowledge. Notes on contributor Gail Marshall is a member of IFIP’s Working Group 3.5 and a frequent contributor to American technology journals. Her articles on the implications of educational philosophy and Information technology practice have also appeared in IFIP conference proceedings. A member of the evaluation team of the Comprehensive School Mathematics Project (CSMP) and an evaluator of many state, federal and foundation sponsored innovations, she holds a Ph.D. from Washington University in St. Louis. References Becker, J. & Jacob, B. (2000) The politics of California school mathematics: the anti-reform of 1997–99. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(7), 527–539. Branigan, C. (2002, March 19) Religious school seeks computer-education waiver, Eschool news online. Available online at: http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/showStory+cfm?ArticleD=3457 (accessed 16 February 2005).

Policy issues for e-learning proponents 159 Dewey, J. (1897, January 16) My pedagogic creed, The School Journal, 77–80. Dowling, C. (2000) Social interactions and the construction of knowledge in a computer-mediated environment, in: D. Watson & T. Downes (Eds) Communication and networking in education: learning in networked society: proceedings of the IFIP TC3WG3.1/3.5 Open Conference on Communications and Networking in Education (Boston, MA; Kluwer Academic Publishers), 165–173. English, F. & Steffy, B. (2001) Deep curriculum alignment: creating a level playing field for all children on highstakes tests of educational accountability (Lanham, MD, Scarecrow Press). International Society for Technology in Education (2002) Big three, Leading and Learning with Technology, 29, 62. Kolstead, R. & Bardwell, J. (1997) Phonics vs whole language in the teaching of reading, Reading Improvement, 34, 154–160. McFarlane, A. (2002) Kids and the net. Paper presented at the Working Group 3.5 Open Meeting, Manchester. Markham, K. (1993-95-2000) Standards for student performance. Available online at: http://eric.voregon.edu/ publications/digests/digest 81.html (accessed 16 February 2005) Metcalf, S. (2002, January 28) Reading between the lines, The Nation. Available online at: http://www.thenation.com (accessed 16 February 2005). National Education Association (2001) Inside scoop: math wars. Available online at: http://www.nea.org/neatoday/o/o5/scoop.html (accessed 16 February 2005). Pearson, M. (2002) Online searching as apprenticeship. A paper presented at the Working Group 3.5 Open Meeting, Manchester. Schwartz, J. (2002, March 25) Law limiting Internet in libraries challenged, The New York Times, p. 16. Shephard, L. & Bleim, C. (1995) An analysis of parent opinions and changes in opinions regarding standardised tests, teacher’s information, and performance assessments. CSE Technical report 397. (Boulder, CO, University of Colorado, CRESST). Skogg, G. (1980) Legal issues involved in evolution vs creationism, Educational Leadership, 38, 154–156. Traub, J. (2002, April 7) Test mess, The New York Times Magazine, 46–51, 60, 78. Viadero, D. (1999) Setting the bar: how high? Education Week. Available online at: http://www.edweek.org/ sreports/qc99/opinion/ac/mc/mc2.htm (accessed 16 February 2005).