Curtains for Cursive?

Cursive writing was a major component of my elementary education. I remember learning how to form individual letters, how to flow the letters together into words. I remember practicing and practicing until cursive became the natural way to write. Lest I return to the simplicities of printing, my school required cursive writing until seventh grade. I happily complied, perfecting my letters, adding unique flourishes here and there. When the cursive requirement was lifted, I tried a return to printing, just to see how it went. And you know what? I've never gone back. Until recently.

Why did I return to the swoops and loops of the cursive alphabet? Well, according to a New York Times article (read the full article here), cursive is well on its way to extinction in the modern handwriting ecosystem.

It makes sense. Though you can type research papers and book reports in cursive fonts, you rarely would. You can't send a text message in cursive, after all. Like the endangered handwritten letter before it, cursive can't keep up with technology.

Maybe it shouldn't have to. The NYTimes article notes the decline of cursive as a taught skill in modern education. Teachers are spending less time making sure students can properly connect a b to an r (I always struggled with that blend...) and more time preparing them for standardized tests.

Consider the question: how useful is cursive to the modern student? I learned cursive over multiple years, and I haven't used it since I was 12. That was when handwriting was still required from time to time. Perhaps if my teachers had spent a little more time developing my math skills, I'd have struggled less in high school. Perhaps preparing our students for a technologically advanced future requires a different set of skills that doesn't include fancy handwriting.

After reading the NYTimes piece, I couldn't help myself. I've spent the last two weeks reintroducing myself to cursive writing. I was a tad rusty, at first. Before long, however, I was swooping and looping like the pro my teachers taught and required me to be. I think I might take notes a smidge faster in cursive. I think my wrist might be a measure more relaxed. But I'm catching a certain scent on the air. And I think it's nostalgia.

The Common Core Debate Rages Onto a Bigger Stage

Since its inception, the Common Core initiative has been a hotly debated issue. The question of whether or not to adopt a uniform national curriculum has been considered by educators, administrators, and parents. Now, the battle lines are being drawn on a bigger stage.

The Albert Shanker Institute recently released a manifesto entitled A Call for Common Content. Calling for equally high education standards across the country, the statement supports the Common Core Standards, praising their "clearer vision of what students should learn and be able to do as they progress through school." It argues that in order to ensure "equal educational opportunity," a common standard must be instituted and upheld.

Not long after, a "counter-manifesto" was released. With signatories from a variety of political and educational institutions, Closing the Door on Innovation rejects the idea of a single national curriculum. The document refuses to "support this effort to undermine control of public school curriculum and instruction at the local and state level." It argues that adopting one must-use system stifles innovation, denying educators the right to adjust and develop curricula from their own experiences. It speaks strongly against the Common Core Standards themselves, as well, calling them "inadequate."

Both documents are signed by supporters big and small. Both make compelling arguments. And both call for support from people like us. It seems the battle lines are being drawn for the Common Core debate. Which side will you be on? Share your opinions in the comments section below.

The 2011 Education Budget: Winners, Losers, and Impact

Last month, Congress finally approved the Department of Education's budget for the 2011 fiscal year. Washington's attempts to reduce overall spending did trim education's allowance, but not by a large margin. 68.5 billion dollars have been allotted, down from 2010's near $70 billion. Despite the minimal adjustment, many education programs' outlooks have drastically changed, for good or ill.

The Winners

(For a complete listing of winners and losers, check out this article from Education Week)

Perhaps the biggest winners were the Race to the Top and Investing in Innovation (i3) programs. Both received multi-million dollar budget increases, with RttT alone pocketing an extra $700 million.

Several programs that target low-income students, families, and districts will also have their funding increased, including Head Start, Pell Grants, and Promise Neighborhoods.

The Losers

Many smaller programs took a hit after the distribution of dollars. These include various nonprofit organizations with more specific focus, like the National Writing Project, which will receive over 25 million dollars less this year. These cuts are in addition to the numerous trimmings and shavings of several additional education programs.

The standout loser in 2011 is the Educational Technology State Grants program, which is dedicated to awarding technology grants to states. The 100 million dollar program has been completely abandoned in this year's budget.

The Impact

What does it all mean? Well, the government is sticking to its guns, advancing recent programs like Race to the Top and i3. It also seems that progression is being encouraged. Education needs to continue to grow and develop, and programs targeting such initiatives have been rewarded. A continued effort to improve educational opportunities for low-income students is also supported.

Some cuts, however, are troubling. A recent review of the budget on the International Society for Technology in Education's (ISTE) blog notes a thinning of small direct-funding programs in favor of competitive grants. (You can read the entire ISTE post here) One wonders if certain areas will suffer as a result of this competition.

More baffling is the elimination of Educational Technology State Grants. If innovation is important (and it certainly is), why cut all funding for such a program? There is no question that technology is an essential component of education's future. True, the government is promoting innovation in technology through other programs (like ARPA-ED). But is keeping the technology front narrow the best way to approach a rapidly developing future?

What do you think? How does the approved budget affect you? How will it affect the educational landscape in the months to come? Make yourselves heard in the comments section below.

ARPA-ED: Education's Bright Future or Another Dim Bulb?

(Note: The ideas and opinions expressed below are just one stance on ARPA-ED. Please let us know your own views by commenting below the article!)

The research and development of educational technology is a tricky thing, for many reasons. In an ever-changing environment, it's difficult to commit to any given project or resource, particularly when they cost a great amount of money to explore, let alone create. Long touted as "the next big thing," interactive digital whiteboards have yet to conquer all the classrooms of planet Earth. This is due, in part, to industry hesitation when it comes to full-throttle development and implementation. It's not just whiteboards. The question looms: Why spend the money required before we're certain everyone will be using it? Ratty textbooks are still read and dusty erasers are still clapped together by naughty students, after all. Perhaps we should stick to the basics a while longer?

The federal government's 2012 federal budget proposal might change all that with something called ARPA-ED. Called an Advanced Research Projects Agency for Education by those with breath enough for its recitation, ARPA-ED is essentially a 90 million-dollar investment in educational research and development. The Department of Education states that it will "fund projects performed by industry, universities, or other innovative organizations, selected based on their potential to create a dramatic breakthrough in learning and teaching." (read the Department's full explanation of ARPA-ED here)

ARPA-ED (and the government) does so in an effort to put America's student's in a position to occupy and create the jobs of tomorrow - and to improve and advance the educational landscape, of course. The Department of Education argues that to achieve these goals, the United States must reestablish itself as the leader in the development of "game changing educational technologies."

How will ARPA-ED catapult us to the top of educational research and development? For an excellent, thorough explanation, read the Department of Education's version. Put very simply, the project will be managed by the best of the best in their respective fields. These experts will challenge all comers to apply for funding, awarding those they see as having the highest potential to bring about the most important and impacting changes in education. The winners will move forward with their projects, and, presumably, the game will proceed to change.

Turning back to our original dilemma - what does an entity like ARPA-ED do for those developers hoping to come up with "the next big thing"? How might it help propel research and development into the next, and arguably most important, gear - implementation? In a word: focus. ARPA-ED doesn't plan on funding any old ed-tech project. Instead, it purports to select technologies and ideas that possess "specific deliverables with measurable impact." In other words, something that can be introduced to the classroom immediately. Something that will have our students learning in new, exciting, and better ways by next year. Something that developers can begin working on and improving today. If carried out effectively, ARPA-ED could be the push forward that education needs.

Is this the launch pad that sends educational R&D's rocket into the great beyond? Will ARPA-ED see revolutionary changes to our teachers, students, and schools in the near future? Or is it another government dream, another education firecracker that will wind up a dud? Sound off in the comments section below.