"The money is out there, we just have to ask for it." So says the teacher or administrator at the faculty meeting. The statement is true, but at what cost? Every grantor of funds has (and rightly so) certain expectations of their grantees. Sometimes these expectations are benign and merely try to ensure that the given funds are used with integrity. But at other times the expectations betray self-serving motivations of the grantor.
I take the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as a case in point. In particular, I am focusing on their funding of a multitude of "education" projects, studies, and initiatives. The Gates Foundation's current flavor of education reform is called College-Ready Education. (It has taken many other forms.) Gates' College-Ready Education program seeks to increase high school graduation rates by implementing educational innovations. Some of these innovations include strengthening student-teacher relationships and giving teachers more say in curriculum design. At the heart of Gates' reform, however, are the technological innovations.
According to the foundation's website, education programs funded by Gates will be steeped in an array of data analysis to constantly monitor and ensure student success. Teachers will be able to assess student performance instantaneously and modify their computer-based learning modules just as quickly. The pinnacle of this new and improved education is game-based learning. This, of course, means computer games--and nothing else.
Allow me to translate these innovations into layman's terms: due to the beneficence of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, teachers will be able to take on the role of classroom technician. They can facilitate student learning by running and monitoring Microsoft education software that teaches students automatically through video games. Students will like their teachers more because they get to play games. Teachers will have to do less work (and be paid less in turn) because they no longer have to teach. Instead teachers can focus on tailoring the software to better match the interests of the students.
I am not saying that a school or classroom that accepts money from the Gates Foundation will be turned into a video game camp. Rather, the educators who accept their gifts will be pushing forward, and investing themselves into, a philosophy of data-driven education that relegates teachers to classroom monitors, and students to consumers of electronic media. Gates' grantees will help lay, like the workers of Metropolis, the foundation for a cybernetic educational utopia.
All money donated to education, therefore, is not the same. All of it has strings attached. The question is, where do those strings lead?
I take the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as a case in point. In particular, I am focusing on their funding of a multitude of "education" projects, studies, and initiatives. The Gates Foundation's current flavor of education reform is called College-Ready Education. (It has taken many other forms.) Gates' College-Ready Education program seeks to increase high school graduation rates by implementing educational innovations. Some of these innovations include strengthening student-teacher relationships and giving teachers more say in curriculum design. At the heart of Gates' reform, however, are the technological innovations.
According to the foundation's website, education programs funded by Gates will be steeped in an array of data analysis to constantly monitor and ensure student success. Teachers will be able to assess student performance instantaneously and modify their computer-based learning modules just as quickly. The pinnacle of this new and improved education is game-based learning. This, of course, means computer games--and nothing else.
Allow me to translate these innovations into layman's terms: due to the beneficence of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, teachers will be able to take on the role of classroom technician. They can facilitate student learning by running and monitoring Microsoft education software that teaches students automatically through video games. Students will like their teachers more because they get to play games. Teachers will have to do less work (and be paid less in turn) because they no longer have to teach. Instead teachers can focus on tailoring the software to better match the interests of the students.
I am not saying that a school or classroom that accepts money from the Gates Foundation will be turned into a video game camp. Rather, the educators who accept their gifts will be pushing forward, and investing themselves into, a philosophy of data-driven education that relegates teachers to classroom monitors, and students to consumers of electronic media. Gates' grantees will help lay, like the workers of Metropolis, the foundation for a cybernetic educational utopia.
All money donated to education, therefore, is not the same. All of it has strings attached. The question is, where do those strings lead?
